PDA

View Full Version : Gaols and Giants 2: Revise Harder



Grod_The_Giant
2013-01-16, 11:56 AM
Introduction
Gaols and Giants is a systematic attempt to fix the basic 3.5 rules we know and love and hate. We intend to do what Pathfinder claimed to be doing: fixing the flaws without re-inventing the wheels. We'll touch up the paint, shore up sagging ceilings, patch the holes in the walls, drive out the vermin, and maybe remodel a bathroom or two, but the house will still be the same.

This thread will serve as both a compilation and an index-- many things will have their own threads, but overviews will be posted here, as will general discussion.


Design Goals

Simplicity. D&D isn't by any stretch of the imagination a simple or rules-light system, and never will be, but there's room for improvement. Those rules that you always have to stop and look up? The things that trip up newbies every time? We'll take 'em apart.
Tolerable nerfs for magic. Magic is too strong in 3.5, we can all agree-- it offers too many options, too many "I win" buttons, and too many spells that render other classes entirely obsolete. All that needs to be fixed, without doing so in a manner that renders casters unfun to play.
Enhanced mundane combat. That means increased power and options for classes like the Fighter and Barbarian, but also improvements to general combat options, to make all forms of combat-- TWF, THF, sword-and-board, reach weapons, combat maneuvers, what have you-- viable options.
Enhanced skills. One reason mundanes fall behind casters is that spells rapidly and totally outstrip skills. We'd like to do something about that.
Eliminate the Christmas Tree. 3.5's math more-or-less requires the full WBL and cartloads of magic items, especially boring stat-boosting ones. I'd really, really, really like to get away from this, so that characters don't need magic items, acquire them fairly rarely, and can use them for their entire careers. (Expendables aside)


An important note: until and unless otherwise specified, assume that things are as in 3.5

Grod_The_Giant
2013-01-16, 11:57 AM
Basics, Races, and Description

The Basic Mechanic

Unless said otherwise, the same mechanic is used to resolve all actions in Gaols and Giants:

The active party rolls 1d20, adds all bonuses and subtracts all penalties. Then, the result is compared to either a static difficulty (DC) for actions that are not made against a creature, an appropriate statistic, such as armor class of a creature targeted, or another 1d20 plus bonuses and minus penalties against a creature actively opposed to the roll. If the active party rolls higher or equal to the DC or the opponent's roll, the action succeeds.

1d20+bonus-penalty vs. DC or opposed roll.

(In other words, the same as 3.5)

Modifiers

Modifiers are anything, either bonus or penalty, that can be added to a roll. Every modifier comes with a type. Bonuses or penalties with the same name do not stack, meaning that if a creature has two bonuses or penalties with the same name, only the higher one applies. If a creature has both a penalty and a bonus of the same type, they will both apply, but partially cancel each other out, as one is positive and the other negative.

Table 1: A list of modifier types, what they can apply to, and a short description of what they represent.

{table=head]Name|Ability|AC|Initiative|Save|Attack|Damage|Skil ls|Description
Arcane|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Spells and magic items
Armour|No|Yes|No|No|No|No|No|Pieces of Armour worn for protection
Circumstance|No*|Yes*|No*|Yes*|Yes*|Yes*|Yes*|A transient, "untyped" bonus, generally awarded on a case-by-case basis.
Competence|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Training gained from class feature
Divine|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Divine power granted by the gods
Inherent|Yes|Yes|No|No|No|No|Yes|Inborn or racial abilities
Luck|No|Yes|No|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|Pure luck
Morale|Yes|No|No|Will|Yes|Yes|Yes|Sheer determination, gained from motivating events
Shield|No|Yes|No|No|No|No|No|Deflecting attacks
Size|No|Yes|No|No|Yes|No|No|Being more difficult or easier to hit thanks to a difference in size.
[/table]

Attributes

Strength, which determines physical power, how much weight someone can carry, attempts at breaking or pushing objects and brute force in combat.
Dexterity, which determines reflexes, how nimble someone's fingers are, how quickly someone can dodge attacks and quick attacks with light weapons.
Constitution, which determines a character's stamina, how much damage they can take before dying, and how well they can resist poisons and diseases.
Intelligence, which determines a character's intellectual capacity, how well they learn and understand new things and how good they are at prepared arcane magic.
Wisdom, which determines a character's insight, perception, memory, common sense and how good they are at prepared divine magic.
Charisma, which determines how attractive a character is, as well as how good at getting others to do what they want. It also determines willpower and the inborn capacity for magic.


Attributes are normally set at a level of 0, which is the level of the average human adult. Most individuals, especially the extraordinary ones such as great heroes, as well as certain species of creature, will be different from the mathematical average in some of their attributes.

An attribute can not normally be below a level of -5, which is already a crippling weakness. If any attribute ever reaches -6, through damage or penalties, there are dire effects: strength or dexterity, when reduced to 0, leave a creature paralyzed, while constitution leaves it dead. All three mental attributes leave a creature comatose when reduced to -6.

Just as there are low attributes, there are high ones. Human attributes rarely reach above +4, and those that have attributes of +5 or even higher are the most exceptional individuals there can be.

Progressions
Many characteristics, such as base attack bonus, armor class, skill points and saves in Gaols and Giants advance based on the character's level, based on one of the three progressions (high, medium, low), in the table below.

Table 2: Value progression by level
{table=head]Level|Low|Medium|High
1|+2|+3|+4
2|+3|+4|+5
3|+3|+5|+6
4|+4|+6|+7
5|+4|+6|+8
6|+5|+7|+9
7|+5|+8|+10
8|+6|+9|+11
9|+6|+9|+12
10|+7|+10|+13
11|+7|+11|+14
12|+8|+12|+15
13|+8|+13|+16
14|+9|+13|+17
15|+9|+14|+18
16|+10|+15|+19
17|+10|+15|+20
18|+11|+16|+21
19|+11|+17|+22
20|+12|+18|+23
[/table]

Good progression: Starts at +4, grows by 1 per level, ends at +23. Is equivalent to current good bab progression +3.

Moderate progression: Starts at +3, grows by 3 points every 4 levels, ends at +18. Is equivalent to current moderate bab progression +3.

Poor progression: Starts at +2, grows by 1 point every even level, ends at +12. Is equivalent to current poor progression +2.

No progression: Starts at 0. Stays there. You don't use this stuff outside of low level if you can avoid it.


tl;dr: Abilities and modifiers have been collapsed into one-- modifiers vs abilities are one of the most unnecessarily confusing things for new players. New, unified progressions for all things-- BAB, skills, saves, and so on, where players start a bit more competently than in 3.5. Fewer modifier types.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-01-16, 12:00 PM
Classes

Barbarian
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter Knight?
Favored Soul
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Sorcerer
Wizard


a later step


Skills (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=260221)


Acrobatics (Dexterity): This represents a character's ability to tumble past his enemies, fit into small spaces and perform other, similar feats of dextrous movement.
Animals (Wisdom): This represents a character's ability to gain an animal's trust or train them, as well as his ability to care for them and ride them.
Athletics (Strength): A character's ability to climb, run, swim, jump and perform other extraordinary physical feats.
Concentration (Wisdom): A character's ability to ignore pain and distracting events around him.
Deception (Charisma): A character's ability to deceive others by lying, feinting or disguising their mannerisms.
Devices (Dexterity): A character's ability to manipulate, repair or jam delicate machinery or pick locks.
Expertise (Intelligence): A character's knowledge about street culture, current events and politics, noteworthy locals and other such applies knowledge.
Heal (Wisdom): A character's ability to care for the wounds and ailments of others.
Insight (Wisdom): A character's ability to prevent being deceived, as well as recognizing the mental state of others.
Intimidation (Charisma): A character's ability to bend others to their will.
Investigation (Intelligence): A character's ability to find tiny clues and find necessary information.
Linguistics (Intelligence): A character's ability in forging documents and finding forgeries, knowledge about ancient manuscript and obscure languages, learning new languages.
Lore (Intelligence): Knowledge of religious customs, dogma and hierarchies, history, nobility and other ancient and current events.
Occult (Intelligence): Knowledge about distant planes, rare creatures and magical occurrences and rituals.
Perception (Wisdom): The ability to notice small details, detect hidden enemies and react to them quickly.
Persuasion (Charisma): The ability to convince others of one's viewpoint through words and to make deals.
Rapport (Charisma): The ability to befriend others, gather information, and make conversation.
Sleight of Hand (Dexterity): The ability to pick pockets, perform small tricks of legerdemain, and move small objects around without being noticed.
Stealth (Dexterity): A character's ability to move silently and covertly without being noticed.
Survival (Wisdom): Practical knowledge about navigation, foraging in the wilderness, tracking, finding shelter and other such wilderness abilities.


Characters gain skill points from their class, which may be spent on any skill on a 1-1 ratio, to a maximum number of ranks equal to the medium progression (2/3 level +3). Skill points may also be spent to purchase skill tricks.

Specializations: Specializations are a special type of skill trick. Characters gain a +1 bonus, +1 for every 5 additional class levels, to a specific subset of a skill-- Stealth (Move Silently), Occult (The Planes), and so on.


Feats

overview here, lists/descriptions in its thread

Grod_The_Giant
2013-01-16, 12:03 PM
Combat (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=257094)

Offense

Attack Roll
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

Your attack roll with a melee weapon is your Base Attack Bonus + Strength. Your attack roll with a ranged weapon is you Base Attack Bonus + Dexterity.


Automatic Misses and Hits
As in 3.5

Damage
When your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal. Effects that modify weapon damage apply to unarmed strikes and the natural physical attack forms of creatures.

Damage reduces a target’s current hit points.


Minimum Damage
If penalties reduce the damage result to less than 1, a hit still deals 1 point of damage.

Strength Bonus
When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength score to the damage result.

Dexterity Bonus
When you hit with a non-thrown ranged weapon, such as a bow or crossbow, add your Dexterity score to the damage result. You may also chose to add your Dexterity score to the damage result in place of your Strength when wielding a light melee weapon.

Special Weapon Rules


Light Weapons
When wielding a light weapon, you may use your Dexterity in place of Strength when calculating your attack bonus and damage results.

Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed
When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, instead add one and a half times your Strength to damage. However, you don’t get this higher Strength bonus when using a light weapon with two hands.

Reach Weapons
A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren’t adjacent to him or her. Most reach weapons double the wielder’s natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.

Two-Weapon Fighting
When wielding two light weapons, or a one-handed weapon in one hand and a light weapon in the other, you may take a -2 penalty to attack with both your primary and secondary weapons as a standard action. When using the full attack option, you may make one additional attack for every ten points of BAB. You may chose whether each attack uses your main hand or off-hand, if there are differences.

Shield Bashes
You may bash an opponent with a shield, using it as a weapon. You always use your Strength score when calculating attack and damage during a shield bash. If you only attack with your shield, you may retain your shield bonus to armor class. Alternately, you may choose to use your shield as an off-hand weapon when two-weapon fighting. If you do so, you gain the usual benefits of two-weapon fighting, but you lose your shield bonus to armor class on any turn where you do so.


Defenses

Armor Class
Your Armor Class (AC) represents how hard it is for opponents to land a solid, damaging blow on you. It’s the attack roll result that an opponent needs to achieve to hit you. Your AC is equal to the following:

5 + Base Attack Bonus* + Armor Bonus + Shield Bonus + Dexterity + Size modifier.

Armor Bonus + Max Dexterity will cap out at 8. Shields will cap out at 4.

*When adding your base attack bonus to your AC, use the next lowest progression. So a fighter would treat his BAB as medium when adding it to AC, a rogue would treat her BAB as poor, and so on.

Note that armor limits your Dexterity bonus, so if you’re wearing armor, you might not be able to apply your whole Dexterity bonus to your AC. Sometimes you can’t use your Dexterity score (if you have one). If you can’t react to a blow, you can’t add your Dexterity to AC.


Touch Attacks
Some attacks disregard armor, including natural armor. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn’t include any armor bonus or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your shield modifier, size modifier, Dexterity, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally.

Hit Points
When your hit point total reaches 0, you’re disabled. When it reaches -1, you’re dying. When it gets to -(level+Constitution score), you’re dead.

Speed
Your speed tells you how far you can move in a round and still do something, such as attack or cast a spell. Your speed depends mostly on your race and what armor you’re wearing.

If you use two move actions in a round (sometimes called a "double move" action), you can move up to double your speed. If you spend the entire round to run all out, you can move up to quadruple your speed (or triple if you are in heavy armor).

Saving Throws
Generally, when you are subject to an unusual or magical attack, you get a saving throw to avoid or reduce the effect. Like an attack roll, a saving throw is a d20 roll plus a bonus based on your class, level, and an ability score. Your saving throw modifier is:

Base save bonus + ability


Base Save Bonus
A saving throw modifier derived from character class and level. Base save bonuses increase at different rates for different character classes. Base save bonuses gained from different classes, such as when a character is a multiclass character, stack.

Saving Throw Types
The three different kinds of saving throws are Fortitude, Reflex, and Will:

Fortitude
These saves measure your ability to stand up to physical punishment or attacks against your vitality and health. Apply your Constitution score to your Fortitude saving throws.

Reflex
These saves test your ability to dodge area attacks. Apply your Dexterity score to your Reflex saving throws.

Will
These saves reflect your resistance to mental influence as well as many magical effects. Apply your Wisdom to your Will saving throws.

Saving Throw Difficulty Class
The DC for a save is determined by the attack itself.

Automatic Failures and Successes
A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on a saving throw is always a failure. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a success.

Initiative
At the start of a battle, each combatant makes an initiative check. Characters act in order, counting down from highest result to lowest. In every round that follows, the characters act in the same order (unless a character takes an action that results in his or her initiative changing; see Special Initiative Actions).

If two or more combatants have the same initiative check result, the combatants who are tied act in order of total initiative modifier (highest first). If there is still a tie, the tied characters should roll again to determine which one of them goes before the other.

The modifier to an initiative check is equal to 1/2 your Base Attack Bonus + Wisdom + Dexterity.

Attacks of Opportunity
Rules unchanged from 3.5

Actions in Combat: Summary
{table]Free Actions|
|Drop an Item
|Speak
Swift Actions|
|Drop Prone
|Draw or Sheathe a Weapon
|Five-Foot Step
|Ready or Loose a Shield
|Stand Up
Move Actions|
|Aim
|Manipulate an Item
|Mount/Dismount a Steed
|Move
|Stand Up
Standard Actions|
|Attack
|Bull Rush
|Charge
|Defend
|Dirty Trick
|Disarm
|Feint
|Grapple
|Interrupt
|Snatch
|Sunder
|Trip
Full-Round Actions|
|Covering Fire
|Full Attack
|Run
|Overrun
|Withdraw[/table]


Conditions (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=257689)

Note: this is still pretty controversial, and I'm not married to it

Condition Tracks: Whenever a creature is affected by a spell or ability that inflicts a condition, he rolls a saving throw, as normal. If he makes the save, he is unaffected. If he fails, however, he is affected by the appropriate first degree condition. If he fails the save by 5 or more, he is instead affected by a second degree condition, and if he fails by 10 or more, he is affected by a third degree condition.

If a creature is already affected by a condition, and is affected by another ability inflicting the same condition, it takes a penalty to the saving throw: -2 if suffering from a first degree condition, and -5 if suffering from a second degree condition.

Spells and abilities are limited in how many degrees of conditions they may inflict. A 1st or 2nd level spell may only inflict first degree conditions, no matter how much the . A 3rd of 4th level spell may only inflict first or second degree conditions, and only a 5th or higher level spell may inflict a third degree condition. These guidelines hold true even when stacking conditions-- if a creature is already Shaken, it does not become Frightened if it fails a save against a scare spell (2nd level), no matter how badly it fails it saving throw.

{table=head]|First Degree|Second Degree|Third Degree
|Save failed|Save failed by 5 or more|Save failed by 10 or more.
|1-2 level spells|3-4 level spells|5+ level spells
Blinding|Dazzled: All foes have 10% concealment; -2 to Search, Spot, and AC.|Partially Blinded: All foes have 20% concealment; -5 to Search, Spot, and AC.|Blind: You cannot see-- all checks and activities that rely on vision automatically fail. All foes have total concealment; -5 AC, and no Dexterity bonus to AC.
Madness: |Unsteady: 10%: Attack caster, 70%: Act normally, 20%: Flee|Confused: 10%: Attack caster, 50%: Act normally, 20%: Flee, 20%: Attack nearest creature|Insane: 10%: Attack caster, 10%: Act normally, 30%: Babble incoherently, 20%: Flee, 30%: Attack nearest creature
Fatigue|Fatigued: -2 to Strength, Dexterity, Caster level, and spell save DCs|Exhausted: -5 to Strength, Dexterity, Caster level, and spell save DCs; speed halved, can't run or charge|Unconscious
Fear|Shaken: -2 to attack rolls, mental skill checks, and Will saves|Frightened: -5 to attack rolls, mental skill checks, and Will saves, attempt to retreat|Panicked: -5 to attack rolls, mental skill checks, and Will saves, cannot do anything but flee. If you can't flee, you cower and take no actions.
Impairing|Impaired: -2 to all rolls|Inhibited: -5 to all rolls|Disabled: Cannot take actions.
Mind Control|Trusting: Improve the target's attitude one step (as the 3.5 Diplomacy skill), to a maximum of Friendly.|Charmed: Improve the target's attitude two steps, to a maximum of Helpful|Dominated: Improve the target's attitude 3 steps, to a maximum of Fanatic.
Slowing|Hindered: Speed halved, can't run or charge, -2 attack and AC|Immobile: No movement, -5 to attack and AC, lose Dexterity bonus to AC|Paralyzed: Cannot take physical actions.
Stunning|Stymied: No swift or full-round actions.|Dazed: One standard action per turn.|Stunned: Cannot take actions.
Sudden Death|Weakened: -2 to all ability scores|Drained: -5 to all ability scores|Dying: Reduced to -1 hit point, see below.
[/table]

Recovery
First-degree conditions can be cured with an hour's rest, or 15 minutes of rest and a successful Heal check (DC equal to that of the effect that inflicted the condition.

Second-degree conditions can be reduced to first degree with an hour's rest and a successful Heal check (DC equal to that of the effect that inflicted the condition.

Third-degree conditions cannot be cured or reduced without magic. You may only make one Heal check per character's condition track per day, although you may treat multiple subjects suffering from the same conditions.

Lesser restoration cures first degree conditions and improves second-degree conditions by one step. Restoration and Heal cure first and second-degree conditions,and improve third degree conditions to second degree. Greater restoration removes all conditions.

Conditions also might reverse themselves if the effect inflicting them has a limited duration which expires.

Condition-to-track conversion list
{table]Ability Damage|Normal
Ability Drain|Normal
Blind|Blinding Track
Confused|Madness Track
Cowering|Fear track
Dazed|Stunning track
Dazzled|Blinding Track
Deafened|Normal
Dead|Dying track
Disabled|Dying track
Dying|Dying track
Energy Drained|Normal
Entangled|Slowing track
Exhausted|Fatigue track
Fascinated|Normal
Fatigued|Fatigue track
Flat-footed|Normal
Frightened|Fear track
Grappling|normal
Helpless|Normal
Nauseated|Impairing track
Panicked|Fear track
Paralyzed|Slowing + Impairing tracks
Petrified|Slowing + Impairing tracks
Prone|normal
Shaken|Fear track
Sickened|Impairing track
Stunned|Stunning track
Unconscious|Fatigue or Stunning track[/table]

Things that follow a similar format

Damage
{table=head]Condition|Circumstance|Effect|Recovery
Bloodied|Two-thirds or less total health remaining.|-1 to all rolls.|Magical healing to raise your current hit points above two-thirds of the maximum, or a Heal check (DC equal to damage taken) to eliminate the penalty.
Injured|One-third or less total health remaining.|-2 to all rolls, and half speed.|Magical healing to raise your current hit points above one-third of the maximum, or a Heal check (DC equal to damage taken) to eliminate the penalty.
Maimed|Zero hit points, or negative hit points and stable.|You may only take a single standard or move action per turn, and doing so inflicts one damage (reducing you to Dying)|Magical healing to raise your current hit points above zero, or a successful Fortitude save or Heal check (DC 10 + the absolute value of your negative hit points)
Dying|-1 to –(level + Constitution) hit points.|You may not take any actions except make Fortitude saves to recover (a full-round action. Each turn, you take one damage.|Magical healing to raise your current hit points above zero. Alternately, a successful Fortitude save or Heal check (DC 10 + the absolute value of your negative hit points) will improve your condition to Maimed.
Dead|Less than –(level + Constitution) hit points.|Game over, man, game over! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npjOSLCR2hE&t=2m15s)|Resurrection magic.[/table]

Attitude
{table=head]Hostile|Unfriendly|Indifferent|Friendly|Helpful
Will take risks to hurt you|Wishes you ill|Doesn’t much care|Wishes you well|Will take risks to help you[/table]

Wind
{table=head]Strong Winds|Severe Winds|Catastrophic Winds
Checked: Forward movement halted/prevented; flying creatures pushed back 1d6x5 feet|Knocked Down: Knocked prone; flying creatures pushed back 1d6x10 feet|Blown Away: Creatures on the ground are knocked prone and rolled 1d4×10 feet, taking 1d4 points of nonlethal damage per 10 feet. Flying creatures are blown back 2d6×10 feet and take 2d6 points of nonlethal damage due to battering and buffeting. [/table]


Magic Overview (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14178993)

Abilities(1)

All casters are dependent on two different ability scores, as determined by their class. Their base casting ability affects magical stamina they have-- how much magic their bodies can store, and how how fast they regain magic. Their advanced casting ability affects magical skill-- how complex a spell they can cast, and how hard their spells are to resist.


Casting Spells

Casting a spell is a standard action which provokes attacks of opportunity. To cast a spell, you must have an advanced casting score equal to the spell level -2. Unless a spell description specifically mentions otherwise, you may only cast one spell per round.



Concentration
(as 3.5?)

Counterspelling
(As 3.5, except that the skill roll to identify your opponent's spell is an Occult roll, and you may use any spell of the same or higher level with the same descriptors as a counterspell-- so, for example, you could use a call lightning spell to counterspell a lightning bolt spell.

Casting Defensively
Is impossible. Barring feats or class features, you always provoke attacks of opportunity for casting spells.



Spell Points

All casters have a certain number of spell points, as determined by their class(2). Casting a spell requires the expenditure of a number of spell points equal to the level of the spell being cast. Zero-level spells, also known as cantrips (for arcane magic) or orisons (for divine magic) cost no spell points, and may be cast at-will.

If a character has multiple spellcasting classes, add together all spell points gained from arcane classes into a single arcane pool, and all spell points gained from divine classes into a single divine pool. A character with multiple arcane casting classes can use spell points received from any arcane casting class to cast spells gained from any arcane casting class, although class level still limits how high level a spell he can cast. Multiple divine casting classes work the same way. However, you may not use spell points from arcane casting classes to cast divine spells, and vice-versa.

Characters gain bonus spell points for having a high base casting ability. Your bonus spell points are equal to one-half your base casting ability multiplied by the highest level spell you can cast. You may only gain these bonus spell points once for each pool, arcane and divine.

Spell points regenerate over time. A character regenerates a number of spell points per hour equal to his base casting ability. While sleeping, they instead recover a number of points per hour equal to their caster level plus their base casting ability.


Resisting Magic

The saving throw DC against a spell or spell-like ability is 10 + twice the spell's level + the caster's advanced casting ability.(3)

Some creatures have spell resistance-- a natural or unnatural resistance to magic. Creatures with spell resistance gain a bonus on saving throws and opposed checks against spells and spell-like abilities equal to their spell resistance(4).


Metamagic

In the absence of specific feats or class features, no more than one metamagic feat may be applied to a given casting of a spell.

------------------

(1)- In G&G, modifiers and ability scores have been merged. A 3.5 score of 14, say, translates to a G&G score of 2.
(2)- As a general rule for conversions, add up the total number of spell levels a character receives per day. Thus, a 3rd level wizard gets 4 spell points (disregarding bonus spell points)- 2 from his 2 first-level spells, and 2 from his 1 second-level spell.
(3)- Saving throws will have the same good/average/poor progression as base attack bonus and skills, so a 3rd level rogue's reflex save might be +6, as opposed to +3 in 3.5.
(4)- As a rough conversion, G&G SR = 3.5 SR divided by 4

Grod_The_Giant
2013-01-16, 12:04 PM
Monsters

to come


Miscellaneous Rules

to come

Grod_The_Giant
2013-01-16, 12:06 PM
Reserved just in case.

Feel free to start posting here; I'll work on filling stuff back in.

Sgt. Cookie
2013-01-16, 12:14 PM
I don't know what you did with Humans, but an idea I've been toying with was that Humans still get their 1st level bonus feat, in exchange for loosing their 3rd level feat.

Just my 2p.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-01-16, 12:20 PM
For races, I was thinking that all would get 1 stat boost, 1-2 skill boosts/specializations, and one signature ability comparable to a feat.

Eldan
2013-01-16, 12:40 PM
Can I just say that we should really think about that class list? Because I still maintain that "fighter" is not really a class that is necessary in third edition. Because I can't really think of any examples of one in fiction as it is presented in the player's handbook. They are all barbarians, knights, paladins, rangers or rogues of some kind. No one has "I fight things and have no skills other than swinging weapons" as their background. And once you move away from that, you get into specialized classes.

Also, I would have gone with G&G 2: Electric Revisaloo.


Also, everyone getting two stat boost? Come on, it was already silly when Pathfinder did it, even partially. It's pointless. If everyone just gets bonuses, the only thing you do is meaninglessly raise averages. It would be easier to just say "36 point buy is the standard", instead of the 25-28 the DMG recommends.


Also 3, son of the also:
Kneel before Grod!

All hail King Grod!

Zman
2013-01-16, 01:21 PM
I like the goal and am working on something similar as well.

Give Ranged Dex to Damage. It'd go along way towards making ranged viable beyond the first three levels or specialized niche builds.

May I suggest a revision to Pointbuy.

8 to 12 1 point
13 to 14 2 points
15 to 16 3 points
17 to 18 4 points

Basically increasing the cost of increasing abilities beyond 12 by one. Also, leave the normal points offered the same. This will help drag stats down a bit which in turns help make CR a fraction more meaningful and penalizes SAD classes more. This also makes racial bonuses more meaningful.

Stat inflation has gone along way to worsening balance.


Here is also my suggestion on Skills

Eliminate cross class penalty, but keep max ranks the same.

Make every five ranks beyond the first five cost an additional point. And an additional point for each rank beyond 10. So getting that 11th skill rank costs 3 skill points. This will push towards broadening ones skill selection and make over specialization more difficult.

Also give all classes except Wizard at least 4 Skill points per level.

Those are just a few ideas I've been working with.

Eldan
2013-01-16, 01:28 PM
In the last thread, we agreed to nix class skills entirely, actually. There's just not much point to them. If I want to play a barbarian who studied magical theory, why the hell not?

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-01-16, 04:22 PM
Can I just say that we should really think about that class list? Because I still maintain that "fighter" is not really a class that is necessary in third edition. Because I can't really think of any examples of one in fiction as it is presented in the player's handbook. They are all barbarians, knights, paladins, rangers or rogues of some kind. No one has "I fight things and have no skills other than swinging weapons" as their background. And once you move away from that, you get into specialized classes.

Well, "Fighter" doesn't have to mean "fights things and is useless outside combat," that's just what it has happened to mean for the past few editions; keeping the name and enhancing the class would work for people who are attached to having Fighter on their character sheet.

Rather than making the Fighter a Knight-themed class, as suggested by the strikethrough in the classes post, I'd go with a Soldier theme. "Soldier" encompasses your basic heavy-armored fighter-type, as well as a more lightly-armored Spartan or mercenary type and a commanding marshal or knight type, which makes him a lot more well-rounded and gives him obvious hooks for out-of-combat stuff.

Also regarding classes, do you really need a sorcerer and favored soul? The classes as presented are basically a spontaneous wizard and cleric with a few random class features sprinkled in, so I could see making both classes merely ACFs for their "parent" classes.

Eldan
2013-01-16, 04:38 PM
Yes, I can see that. However, what I mean is: for all those archetypes, there are already specialized classes. The lightly armoured mobile fighter is a scout or rogue or ranger. The heavy armour guy is a knight. The marshal is, well, a marshal (just because the class sucks doesn't mean it isn't true). The town guard is surely a ranger, for the skill points.

Why, exactly, do we need a class that tries to marry so many different combat archetypes? We got right of the generic spellcaster class long ago.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-01-16, 04:42 PM
Also, everyone getting two stat boost? Come on, it was already silly when Pathfinder did it, even partially. It's pointless. If everyone just gets bonuses, the only thing you do is meaninglessly raise averages. It would be easier to just say "36 point buy is the standard", instead of the 25-28 the DMG recommends.
It was an idle thought. It might also be a +1/-1, with some (humans, say) getting nothing.


I like the goal and am working on something similar as well.

Give Ranged Dex to Damage. It'd go along way towards making ranged viable beyond the first three levels or specialized niche builds.
It's in there, along with Dex for light weapons


Here is also my suggestion on Skills

Eliminate cross class penalty, but keep max ranks the same.
We've ditched class skills. Max ranks are lower, since the skills are broader, but you can buy a bonus to a sub-area (such as Occult: Spellcraft) to bring it back up to the original max.


Make every five ranks beyond the first five cost an additional point. And an additional point for each rank beyond 10. So getting that 11th skill rank costs 3 skill points. This will push towards broadening ones skill selection and make over specialization more difficult.
Hmm. An interesting idea, if getting into the complex terrain.


Also give all classes except Wizard at least 4 Skill points per level.
Well, yeah. Thanks for the thoughts!


Well, "Fighter" doesn't have to mean "fights things and is useless outside combat," that's just what it has happened to mean for the past few editions; keeping the name and enhancing the class would work for people who are attached to having Fighter on their character sheet.

Rather than making the Fighter a Knight-themed class, as suggested by the strikethrough in the classes post, I'd go with a Soldier theme. "Soldier" encompasses your basic heavy-armored fighter-type, as well as a more lightly-armored Spartan or mercenary type and a commanding marshal or knight type, which makes him a lot more well-rounded and gives him obvious hooks for out-of-combat stuff.
I don't know. Personally, I like the fighter as the smart warrior, the one who might or might not use heavy armor, but relies on discipline and extreme skill, as opposed to the barbarian's brute strength and toughness. That seems like enough of a niche to do useful things with.


Also regarding classes, do you really need a sorcerer and favored soul? The classes as presented are basically a spontaneous wizard and cleric with a few random class features sprinkled in, so I could see making both classes merely ACFs for their "parent" classes.
Well, that's something that needs to be changed, isn't it? A goal of mine, at least, is to make all the classes distinct mechanically, at least to some degree. Check out my Wizard and Sorcerer revisions; the sorcerer gets powers related to his heritage, along with self-damage-to-boost-spells, while the wizard gets the ability to modify spells on the fly and cast rituals. For Cleric/Favored Soul, the cleric can be the armored servant of the god, like 3.5, while the Favored Soul gets to be the higher-powered caster.



Oh, and I think that's most of the material we had written posted, apart from the details of combat actions (see the link), the beginnings of the skill tricks (link), and my hasty attempts at spell rewrites.

Eldan
2013-01-16, 05:18 PM
Eh, well. I don't see barbarians as wearing heavy armour either. Or the rogue, or the ranger. They are all light or perhaps rarely medium armour people. That would only leave the paladin for the heavy armour, and that's quite a specialized project.

toapat
2013-01-16, 05:21 PM
Classes

Barbarian
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter Knight?
Favored Soul
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Sorcerer
Wizard


You really shouldnt start with classes with any named biases before them.

Basically, decide how to fill these characters/subarchetypes:

Knight in Shining Armor
Noble Savage
Warrior Monk
Holy Warrior
War Mage/Battle Priest
Shapeshifter
The Cunning Thief
The 4 Rites of spellcaster (Learned, Devout, Natural, and Bargained)
The Bard

Notes: Holy warriors use mystic defeneses to supplement their offense, Battle Priests use mundane defense to supplement their offense.

Zman
2013-01-16, 05:23 PM
It's in there, along with Dex for light weapons

Great.

We've ditched class skills. Max ranks are lower, since the skills are broader, but you can buy a bonus to a sub-area (such as Occult: Spellcraft) to bring it back up to the original max.

Sounds good.

Hmm. An interesting idea, if getting into the complex terrain.

Not particularly.

Ranks 1-5: 1 Skill Point
Ranks 6-10: 2 Skill Points
Ranks 11+: 3 Skill Points

Well, yeah. Thanks for the thoughts!

No problem, wish I would have seen the first work earlier.



See Blue text.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-01-16, 05:24 PM
Eh, well. I don't see barbarians as wearing heavy armour either. Or the rogue, or the ranger. They are all light or perhaps rarely medium armour people. That would only leave the paladin for the heavy armour, and that's quite a specialized project.

Who said barbarians were going to be wearing heavy armor? :smallconfused:

Anyway, the big objectives at the moment:


Confirm combat, magic, and skill revisions
Write skill tricks
Decide what to do about conditions
Spell-by-spell rewrites (:smallfrown:)
Write/assemble feat lists
Write/modify base classes
Monsters?
Playtesting

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-01-16, 05:39 PM
Yes, I can see that. However, what I mean is: for all those archetypes, there are already specialized classes. The lightly armoured mobile fighter is a scout or rogue or ranger. The heavy armour guy is a knight. The marshal is, well, a marshal (just because the class sucks doesn't mean it isn't true). The town guard is surely a ranger, for the skill points.

Why, exactly, do we need a class that tries to marry so many different combat archetypes? We got right of the generic spellcaster class long ago.

It's not really many different archetypes, just two or three, the same way ranger covers the "archer" and "woodsman" and "monster hunter" archetypes. I basically agree with this:


I don't know. Personally, I like the fighter as the smart warrior, the one who might or might not use heavy armor, but relies on discipline and extreme skill, as opposed to the barbarian's brute strength and toughness. That seems like enough of a niche to do useful things with.

The fighter-as-professional-soldier and fighter-as-tactician routes are both "smart warrior" archetypes, so all I'm saying is that the knight and marshal classes could easily be combined to form the fighter (and as a side effect allow for a medium armored warrior to fill in the space between heavy Knight or Paladin and light Scout or Rogue) instead of having the knight replace the fighter and leaving the knight as a separate class.


Well, that's something that needs to be changed, isn't it? A goal of mine, at least, is to make all the classes distinct mechanically, at least to some degree. Check out my Wizard and Sorcerer revisions; the sorcerer gets powers related to his heritage, along with self-damage-to-boost-spells, while the wizard gets the ability to modify spells on the fly and cast rituals. For Cleric/Favored Soul, the cleric can be the armored servant of the god, like 3.5, while the Favored Soul gets to be the higher-powered caster.

I thought someone had complained last time around about the sorcerer being pigeonholed into the bloodline caster and didn't want to see that in G&G; that might have been another thread. If you're actually going to split up the cleric and give the sorcerer a reason to exist, though, by all means keep them around.


Decide what to do about conditions

I believe it was fairly settled that you were going with condition tracks, barring Just to Browse's complaining about their complexity. By "decide what to do about conditions" are you referring to just nailing down which tracks to have and how they work, or are you thinking of scrapping them in favor of something else?

Grod_The_Giant
2013-01-16, 05:47 PM
I believe it was fairly settled that you were going with condition tracks, barring Just to Browse's complaining about their complexity. By "decide what to do about conditions" are you referring to just nailing down which tracks to have and how they work, or are you thinking of scrapping them in favor of something else?
Did we? It's been a while and I can't read through that thread without driving my blood pressure up. But looking back, I guess we did address a lot of the more glaring issues, apart from complexity. So... it's mostly a "confirm and if necessary tweak" thing, I guess.

Another option is to fold condition tracks into individual spell descriptions, which might or might not improve simplicity.

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-01-16, 05:52 PM
Did we? It's been a while and I can't read through that thread without driving my blood pressure up. But looking back, I guess we did address a lot of the more glaring issues, apart from complexity. So... it's mostly a "confirm and if necessary tweak" thing, I guess.

Another option is to fold condition tracks into individual spell descriptions, which might or might not improve simplicity.

Mmm...I can certainly see a few spell descriptions having something like "If you fail the save, X happens; if you fail by 5, Y happens; if you fail by 10, Z happens" if they don't fit into the normal condition mold, but it would probably be good to have established tracks of relation conditions like the fear and mobility conditions in 3e for consistency and ease of reference.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-01-16, 06:00 PM
Mmm...I can certainly see a few spell descriptions having something like "If you fail the save, X happens; if you fail by 5, Y happens; if you fail by 10, Z happens" if they don't fit into the normal condition mold, but it would probably be good to have established tracks of relation conditions like the fear and mobility conditions in 3e for consistency and ease of reference.

Could always do both, so we still have the table, but also have descriptions like:

Hold Person
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 2, Clr 2, Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S, F/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target: One humanoid creature
Duration: 1 round/level (D); see text
Saving Throw: Will negates; see text
Spell Resistance: Yes

If the subject fails his saving throw, he becomes Hindered. If he fails by 5 or more, he is instead Immobile. If he is already Hindered, he takes a -2 penalty on this save.

Arcane Focus: A small, straight piece of iron.

Straybow
2013-01-17, 12:54 AM
Didn't read the old thread, so I apologize if these things have been argued to death.

First, are you really sticking with AC instead of making armor DR based?

Second, if you want to make combat more flexible between Str and Dex I'd do something like this:

You have to choose Strength or Dexterity based fighting style.
However, some things have to use Strength, and some have to use Dexterity.


| Strength Based | Dexterity Based |
Weapon Type | Hit | Damage | Hit | Damage |
—————————————————|————————|————————|———————|—————— ———|
Light Weapons | ½Str | ½Str | Dex | Dex |
Light Thrown | Dex | ½Str | Dex | ½Dex |
Balanced Swords | Str | Str | ½Dex | Dex |
1-Hand Weapons | Str | Str | Str | Str |
2-Hand Weapons | Str | 1½Str | Str | Str |
Hand Missiles* | Dex | ½Str | Dex | Dex |
Melee Thrown** | ½Dex | ½Str | ½Dex | ½Dex |
Polearms | 1½Str | 1½Str | Str | ½Dex |

*Javelin, spear, daneaxe, and others well suited to throwing
**Swords and melee weapons not well suited to throwing,
including some light weapons

Conor77
2013-01-17, 03:05 AM
@Straybow: I think both the AC instead of DR and the Str/Dex dichotomy is to reduce complexity. That little chart there looks very complex for something that does not really need to be that complex.

@All: I think the condition tracks are actually really good, because you have a codified system for causing conditions, instead of random this-thing and that-thing and individual spell descriptions. Speaking of which, condition tracks also make it easier to write spells. Class features and skills (think Intimidation, Marshal Auras, etc) can also reference the condition tracks without needing a lot of writing.

@toapat: I think that those concepts you listed have a lot of overlap (Holy Warrior and Knight in Shining Armor in particular are thiiiis far apart). I agree that titles can bring connotations, but if that is the case, we need to decide what kind of class system we want. For one thing, we need to know how to approach it.

These are the two ways I see:

Flavorful Method: Determine a number of concepts that appear in Roleplaying Games, construct classes based on those. I think D&D Next is doing this currently. Basically, you choose powers that fit into the class and make it balanced, tuning it to fit with the others as you go.

Balance/Mathematical Method: Determine what kind of gameplay niches each class fills (Spontaneous Arcane caster, Prepared Divine caster, Battlefield Control Fighter, or what have you), and build the class around those cores, allowing for customization into the concepts, such as Holy Warrior or what-not.

I personally would approach from the latter way, because that allows us to create classes that can fit multiple archetypes, such as the "Soldier" mentioned, which can be a flexible class, instead of say Barbarian, which is actually a really narrow focus on a role.

Straybow
2013-01-17, 12:53 PM
Well, the Strength based is standard with minor changes, and it is expected that will be the default choice. Specific changes: All thrown weapons get only half Str bonus to damage. Only actual missile weapons get full Dex bonus to hit, throwing other things gets only half Dex bonus. Only polearms get 1½Str to hit, other 2-handed weapons stay at std Str bonus to hit.
Finesse style is only effective for light weapons, balanced swords, and missiles. The ability to shift the grip on polearms allows some effectiveness for finesse style. This could be further ameliorated by allowing spear and staff to count as a balanced weapon.

I understand wanting to reduce complexity, but few things in the D&D legacy system suck as much as AC...

Morty
2013-01-17, 01:18 PM
I think that instead of asking yourself whether or not the Fighter class is necessary, you should ask the opposite question - what do other classes bring to the table that can't be done with a reasonably flexible Fighter class? Can't the Barbarian be just an angry, lightly armored Fighter, for instance?

Dienekes
2013-01-17, 01:24 PM
Well, the Strength based is standard with minor changes, and it is expected that will be the default choice. Specific changes: All thrown weapons get only half Str bonus to damage. Only actual missile weapons get full Dex bonus to hit, throwing other things gets only half Dex bonus. Only polearms get 1½Str to hit, other 2-handed weapons stay at std Str bonus to hit.
Finesse style is only effective for light weapons, balanced swords, and missiles. The ability to shift the grip on polearms allows some effectiveness for finesse style. This could be further ameliorated by allowing spear and staff to count as a balanced weapon.

Honestly I think it would just be easier if finesse was a weapon quality that didn't require a feat spread over a lot more items. Also you really don't want to make different weapons only get half of a stat to damage, it needlessly nerfs them come high levels.


I understand wanting to reduce complexity, but few things in the D&D legacy system suck as much as AC...

The thing about AC vs DR is that DR really doesn't add up right as the characters level up and start tossing around a hundred damage, while AC can be placed in step with attack bonus relatively easily.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2013-01-17, 01:30 PM
I think that instead of asking yourself whether or not the Fighter class is necessary, you should ask the opposite question - what do other classes bring to the table that can't be done with a reasonably flexible Fighter class? Can't the Barbarian be just an angry, lightly armored Fighter, for instance?

Because the Fighter is a generic class, which holds him back from getting unique class features. That's fine, but only if the OTHER classes are ALSO generic classes built for customization. They aren't. The Fighter is a generic class model sitting in a specific class system, which is the big problem. If feats were intended to replace class features, all classes could be reduced to feat options. That's fine...but, again, only if it applies to all classes.

The Fighter's lack of a real identity is what makes fixing the Fighter almost impossible: even the Warblade, one of the broadest Fighter "fixes" imaginable (in that it can work for almost every sort of non-ranged archetype), is lampooned by many for being non-generic enough. It's easier to just ditch the generic option and give more flavorful, more specific options.

Morty
2013-01-17, 01:45 PM
Because the Fighter is a generic class, which holds him back from getting unique class features. That's fine, but only if the OTHER classes are ALSO generic classes built for customization. They aren't. The Fighter is a generic class model sitting in a specific class system, which is the big problem. If feats were intended to replace class features, all classes could be reduced to feat options. That's fine...but, again, only if it applies to all classes.

The Fighter's lack of a real identity is what makes fixing the Fighter almost impossible: even the Warblade, one of the broadest Fighter "fixes" imaginable (in that it can work for almost every sort of non-ranged archetype), is lampooned by many for being non-generic enough. It's easier to just ditch the generic option and give more flavorful, more specific options.

I know that. I'm not saying that Fighter should be generic, flavorless and bland among classes that aren't. My point is that it's better to have fewer, broader classes than a whole lot of narrow ones. Unique classes should be reserved for the warrior archetypes that cannot be folded into the Fighter class without making it too generic to work. Having a class for each archetype risks falling into what is 3e's greatest flaws - too few character concepts being supported.

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-01-17, 01:52 PM
Because the Fighter is a generic class, which holds him back from getting unique class features. That's fine, but only if the OTHER classes are ALSO generic classes built for customization. They aren't. The Fighter is a generic class model sitting in a specific class system, which is the big problem. If feats were intended to replace class features, all classes could be reduced to feat options. That's fine...but, again, only if it applies to all classes.

The Fighter's lack of a real identity is what makes fixing the Fighter almost impossible: even the Warblade, one of the broadest Fighter "fixes" imaginable (in that it can work for almost every sort of non-ranged archetype), is lampooned by many for being non-generic enough. It's easier to just ditch the generic option and give more flavorful, more specific options.

Comparing the fighter to the wizard, both are fairly generic classes with few actual class features who can be specialized into various thematic niches. The difference is that the wizard (A) actually has useful, scaling class features in the form of spells, (B) can take many more of said class features than the fighter can, and (C) has specialties that are broad, flavorful niches on their own rather than being one-trick ponies.

The fighter as a more general class that can be turned into a barbarian, swashbuckler, etc. can be made to work if (A) it gets non-feat class features and its feats are made to not suck, (B) it isn't limited to just 11 of them, and (C) it gets wide specialties like "barbarian" and "swashbuckler" rather than the narrow "tripper" or "charger." Whether it's worth pursuing that route is another matter, but if you're already revising feats to make them not suck and have plenty of fighter fixes to draw upon for inspiration, you might as well consider it.

Some classes like the swashbuckler and knight are narrow enough (as implemented in 3e, not conceptually) that they could be bolted on as fighter specialties fairly easily, and there are other sets of class features (monk's unarmed damage, barbarian's rage) that could be made available to the fighter; if barbarian is just going to stay as "a fighter who gets angry" then it might as well be folded into the fighter, and if it's going to be expanded beyond that there's no harm in giving both the fighter and the barbarian a "battle trance" ability the same way different casters have overlap in their spell lists.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2013-01-17, 02:06 PM
Comparing the fighter to the wizard, both are fairly generic classes with few actual class features who can be specialized into various thematic niches. The difference is that the wizard (A) actually has useful, scaling class features in the form of spells, (B) can take many more of said class features than the fighter can, and (C) has specialties that are broad, flavorful niches on their own rather than being one-trick ponies.

However, "Wizard" is a lot more carefully defined in D&D flavor than "Fighter." That's the only reason I give things like the Cleric and Wizard a pass here.


Some classes like the swashbuckler and knight are narrow enough (as implemented in 3e, not conceptually) that they could be bolted on as fighter specialties fairly easily, and there are other sets of class features (monk's unarmed damage, barbarian's rage) that could be made available to the fighter; if barbarian is just going to stay as "a fighter who gets angry" then it might as well be folded into the fighter, and if it's going to be expanded beyond that there's no harm in giving both the fighter and the barbarian a "battle trance" ability the same way different casters have overlap in their spell lists.

The question here is "where do you stop?" And that's why I tend to avoid generic classes, at least in such broad roles as "Fighter," which basically comes down to "one who fights." Wizard at least bring connotations of a studious master of all forms of magic, which makes it distinct from the Sorcerer, allowing both classes to overlap while remaining distinct (although class features would really help both claim their own identities). Fighter is simply TO broad a concept: it either eats no classes and is oddly generic, eats all classes and becomes the only martial fighting class, or you leave people wondering why Barbarian is it's own class, but Swashbuckler and Knight aren't.

Dienekes
2013-01-17, 02:13 PM
Because the Fighter is a generic class, which holds him back from getting unique class features. That's fine, but only if the OTHER classes are ALSO generic classes built for customization. They aren't. The Fighter is a generic class model sitting in a specific class system, which is the big problem. If feats were intended to replace class features, all classes could be reduced to feat options. That's fine...but, again, only if it applies to all classes.

The Fighter's lack of a real identity is what makes fixing the Fighter almost impossible: even the Warblade, one of the broadest Fighter "fixes" imaginable (in that it can work for almost every sort of non-ranged archetype), is lampooned by many for being non-generic enough. It's easier to just ditch the generic option and give more flavorful, more specific options.

The same could be said about Wizard, Cleric, Sorcerer, and Rogue which are broad generic classes when compared to the Druid, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Monk, and Bard.

Generic classes that are given options to become customizable can be done fine. It's the quality and quantity of those options that's the real problem. Fighter gets only 11 crappy options, Wizards get I don't want to count how many, and so forth.

If people are willing to put in the work there's nothing wrong with creating fewer broader base classes that allow for a high amount of customization. But if that's not the direction that this fix is heading toward I would request that there be a class for an infantry soldier/mercenary. Fighter's about the only class that fits that archetype.

toapat
2013-01-17, 02:34 PM
The same could be said about Wizard, Cleric, Sorcerer, and Rogue which are broad generic classes when compared to the Druid, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Monk, and Bard.

Generic classes that are given options to become customizable can be done fine. It's the quality and quantity of those options that's the real problem. Fighter gets only 11 crappy options, Wizards get I don't want to count how many, and so forth.

If people are willing to put in the work there's nothing wrong with creating fewer broader base classes that allow for a high amount of customization. But if that's not the direction that this fix is heading toward I would request that there be a class for an infantry soldier/mercenary. Fighter's about the only class that fits that archetype.

actually, of the 40ish base classes in DnD, the only specific ones are Paladin/Ripoffs, monk, Archivist, Warlock, and Samurai. There are a number of implemented classes though which are not broad concepts in their implementation.

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-01-17, 04:08 PM
However, "Wizard" is a lot more carefully defined in D&D flavor than "Fighter." That's the only reason I give things like the Cleric and Wizard a pass here.

The D&D fighter is supposed to be the professional soldier/hardened mercenary/trained warrior class, which I'd say is about as defined as the D&D wizard being the studious spellcaster/arcane generalist/magical scientist class. The 3e fighter has no reason to coexist with the other martial classes as-is because the flavor given for it (a well-rounded, competent trained warrior) doesn't match the mechanics (a bland, incompetent blank slate), but you can make a class that does match the fluff without obsoleting the other classes or making the fighter overly generic. You can easily have the fighter alongside the ranger (wilderness-focused), barbarian ("Thog smash!"), and several others without stepping on their toes.

And note that I'm not saying to get rid of all other martial classes. I'm saying that if the other martial classes are going to remain as they are (the swashbuckler as a 3-level class that could be turned into 1-2 feats, the barbarian as Rage: The Class, the samurai as a scary TWFer, etc.) then there's no sense in having them because they could easily be turned into feat trees; however, if they're going to be fleshed out to the point that they're worth having as their own classes then the fighter can similarly be filled out into its own niche--whether the marshal//knight "officer" class I mentioned before, a tanky defender class, or some other niche--and the generic mechanics like Int to damage, combat trance, etc. can fit both the fighter and other classes just fine, again without making them step on each other's toes too much.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-01-17, 05:29 PM
The D&D fighter is supposed to be the professional soldier/hardened mercenary/trained warrior class, which I'd say is about as defined as the D&D wizard being the studious spellcaster/arcane generalist/magical scientist class. The 3e fighter has no reason to coexist with the other martial classes as-is because the flavor given for it (a well-rounded, competent trained warrior) doesn't match the mechanics (a bland, incompetent blank slate), but you can make a class that does match the fluff without obsoleting the other classes or making the fighter overly generic. You can easily have the fighter alongside the ranger (wilderness-focused), barbarian ("Thog smash!"), and several others without stepping on their toes.

This. This right here. This is what I've done in the past (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267461), and will do again. So let's reserve the "what's a fighter?" arguments for the fighter fix thread, shall we?

In the meantime...


Are combat revisions OK? (Follow the link for details on the maneuvers; I can revive the thread if need be)
Are the broad strokes of the magic fix OK?
Are the condition tracks OK?
Do we like the new skill list/idea of having skill tricks?


(On the subject of skill tricks: I like the idea of having three "tiers," with prereqs based on your ranks-- 5 ranks gives you Apprentice tricks, 10 ranks gives you Journeyman tricks, and 15 ranks gives you Master tricks. Apprentice tricks are plausibly human. Journeyman tricks are Batman. Master tricks are mythic heroes)

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-01-17, 05:46 PM
Do we like the new skill list/idea of having skill tricks?

(On the subject of skill tricks: I like the idea of having three "tiers," with prereqs based on your ranks-- 5 ranks gives you Apprentice tricks, 10 ranks gives you Journeyman tricks, and 15 ranks gives you Master tricks. Apprentice tricks are plausibly human. Journeyman tricks are Batman. Master tricks are mythic heroes)

The idea of skill tricks is a good one, but the difference between advanced skill uses and skill tricks is very vague to nonexistent right now, and the lower-tier example skill tricks (Agile Charge, Breath Meditation, and Dextrous Runner) seem like they should just be advanced skill uses; "run across difficult terrain and make a turn" and "be able to dodge while running" and "hold your breath for twice as long" seem like things that naturally fall under Athletics or Acrobatics without needing special extra training, particularly since Agile Charge is the same as Agile Runner, a rank 6 advanced use for Acrobatics.

If you're going to use both of them (and I do think having both is a good idea), I think you need to nail down what exactly differentiates them.

Eldan
2013-01-17, 05:58 PM
Since I'm the one responsible for that...

The idea was that skill tricks were more specialized, things that not everyone would learn just by getting better tat the main skill. Especially those that do not fall entirely under one skill, like the meditations.

The question is if I succeeded or not. Which it seems I didn't.

Conor77
2013-01-17, 06:31 PM
I think the revisions to combat are necessary and proper, the revisions to spells bring everything nicely in line (in two definitions of the word "nice"), and condition tracks are a great foundation to build spells and classes on.

Skill tricks just need more work, like feats and specific spells. We need at least 3 for most every skill, probably in a scaling tier system, if we want to keep things in the graduated system we have now (I think we do)

All in all, this system is so far turning out like making Metric instead of 3E's Imperial.

The next steps should be feats and spells, yes? I'd like to be involved with feats, just because they were handled like such garbage in 3E.

Oh, also, if we are going to have prepared Arcane/Divine caster and spontaneous Arcane/Divine casters, can we give them more distinction than just that? I don't think anything (Sorcerer) should have (Sorcerer) only spells (Sorcerer) as its class abilities (Sorcerer and basically Favored Soul). I think renaming a few classes could also remove a bit of fuzzyness from definitions. Just things like Brute from Barbarian would make it easier to flesh out, IMO.

Eldan
2013-01-17, 06:50 PM
I've done a wizard/sorcerer revision not connected to G&G. The basic idea was:

Wizard: more and broader skills, more spells known
Sorcerers: easier and more metamagic, more power

I think it works, more or less. Wizards study magic. Sorcerers are magic.

toapat
2013-01-17, 06:55 PM
Oh, also, if we are going to have prepared Arcane/Divine caster and spontaneous Arcane/Divine casters, can we give them more distinction than just that? I don't think anything (Sorcerer) should have (Sorcerer) only spells (Sorcerer) as its class abilities (Sorcerer and basically Favored Soul). I think renaming a few classes could also remove a bit of fuzzyness from definitions. Just things like Brute from Barbarian would make it easier to flesh out, IMO.

as i said earlier, they need to make classes based off of concepts, not start with the names already there. Learned, Granted, Natural, and Bargained i feel are more important in terms of spellcasters to have covered then say, having Wizard, Cleric, FVS, and Sorcerer in the game, expecially because it doesnt make sense that Sorcerers are limited to arcane spells. They are natural spellcasters either through inheritence, or cosmic dice. They shouldnt be limited to a specific list except being barred from the stuff the Holy Warrior class gets exclusively. Hell, you could outright strike Learned Caster from the list of base classes because becoming a Mage is supposed to require some form of natural spellcasting ability before you become a caster.

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-01-17, 07:13 PM
The idea was that skill tricks were more specialized, things that not everyone would learn just by getting better tat the main skill. Especially those that do not fall entirely under one skill, like the meditations.

Right. I guess my point is that you need to establish how far something has to be from the normal skill to go from "everyone learns this eventually" to "needs special training." As with the Agile Charge and Agile Runner thing, there are areas where a task could plausibly be either one, and figuring out where the line is would help.

To me, holding one's breath better seems like it would be an advanced use of Athletics because it isn't particularly powerful or specialized and it's directly improving on the rank 1 Swim advanced use of Athletics, but obviously you felt differently, and without knowing what criteria you've been using (if any) to determine what becomes an advanced use and what becomes a skill trick it's hard to tell why that's the case.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-01-17, 07:18 PM
Personally, I'm in favor of dropping prepared casting altogether. It's slow, clunky, and overpowered. Players (in my experience) hate it, and generally prepare the same list over and over again with few exceptions. Meanwhile, there's a reason that there's not a single prepared full caster outside of tier 1.

Here's my breakdown of the classes (largely based on my own 'brew, admittedly, but hey, that's how I see the classes)


Barbarian (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=227466)- the brutal, intuitive warrior. Mechanically, the class is focused around Rage and taking hits.
Bard- we know what a bard is, no problem here. Although I kind of like the idea of making them an invocation-based class instead of casters.
Cleric (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12348960&postcount=2)- Armored warrior of a deity. Spontaneous casting based almost entirely on their deity's domains, with a ritual prayer option to cast other spells on the Cleric list with a long casting time.
Druid (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=230514)- Shaman and manifestation/protector of nature. Spontaneous casting, the PHB2 Shapeshift variant, and a weakened animal companion can drop its power significantly.
Fighter (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14514029#post14514029)- The professional warrior and general, with skills and knowledge beyond other warrior, and a focus on leadership, using either brains or charisma.
Favored Soul- A powerful caster operating on a direct link to their god. Spontaneous casting not limited to domains, along with channeled divine energy powers. (Turn undead, etc).
Monk- light, semi-mystic kung fu master.
Paladin (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12150015#post12150015)- holy warrior and general Hero. Smites, healing, and protection powers. Some magic.
Ranger- light, mobile warrior of nature. I'm not too attached to their magic, and would like to combine him with the scout (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14192508#post14192508).
Rogue- Stealthy, agile combatant and skillmonkey. Maybe steal some parts from the factotum (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=259254)?
Sorcerer (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=230721)- Magic through the blood. More spell points than the wizard, with powers (and maybe bonus spells) based on their bloodline, and the ability to damage themselves to boost their spells.
Wizard (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12623421&postcount=2)- Magic through study. Fewer spell points than the sorcerer, and fewer absolute spells known, but with the ability to alter spells on the fly, and pack a "ritual book" they can cast from with extremely expended casting times (~10 minutes/spell level).

Eldan
2013-01-17, 07:18 PM
Criterion...

If I can be honest? Gut feeling.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-01-17, 07:26 PM
Criterion...

If I can be honest? Gut feeling.

Right. My suggestion?

Most of the existing tricks are level 1/rank 5/apprentice/whatever abilities.

Level 2/rank 10/journeyman/whatever abilities should be based on comic book feats.

Level 3/rank 15/master/whatever abilities are flat-out superhuman, and should be based on spells, not reality.

toapat
2013-01-17, 07:33 PM
Cleric (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12348960&postcount=2)- Armored warrior of a deity. Spontaneous casting based almost entirely on their deity's domains, with a ritual prayer option to cast other spells on the Cleric list with a long casting time.
Favored Soul- A powerful caster operating on a direct link to their god. Spontaneous casting not limited to domains, along with channeled divine energy powers. (Turn undead, etc).
Wizard (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12623421&postcount=2)- Magic through study. Fewer spell points than the sorcerer, and fewer absolute spells known, but with the ability to alter spells on the fly, and pack a "ritual book" they can cast from with extremely expended casting times (~10 minutes/spell level).


Throw these out entirely.

Clerics: To state the number of reasons why they shouldnt exist in implementation requires an entire book, the least of which is that Paladin is supposed to be half their entire role. Use priests.

Favored Souls: Should be an ACF for Sorcerer, not a class.

Wizard: Close, but the concept is too broad. Wizard are supposed to have massive spell knowledges, A Mage is supposed to have a focus, if it refers to a character more specifically then just as an alternative term for spellcaster.

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-01-17, 07:36 PM
Right. My suggestion?

Most of the existing tricks are level 1/rank 5/apprentice/whatever abilities.

Level 2/rank 10/journeyman/whatever abilities should be based on comic book feats.

Level 3/rank 15/master/whatever abilities are flat-out superhuman, and should be based on spells, not reality.

That still doesn't help with deciding which comic book feats are rank 10 advanced uses and which are journeyman skill tricks, though. Power level isn't the problem, it's what you need to buy and what you get automatically. Obviously tastes will vary for this sort of thing (Should you have a Weapon Finesse feat or make Dex to attack an inherent feature of finesse weapons? What things should be combat maneuvers and what should be feats?) but there should be some criterion dividing the two.

Conor77
2013-01-17, 07:45 PM
As far as magical classes, I was thinking we could break it down like this:

Arcane:
<Warlock>, a highly, highly specialized caster with emphasis on very powerful magic as opposed to versatile magic. Pact-maker in most settings.
<Sorcerer>, a less specialized caster that uses more spells, but has them diluted (compared to the Warlock). Flavor varies, but inherits power somehow.

Divine:
<Favored Soul>, is selected by a deity or other force, who reaches down and boops them on the nose, granting them immense power. They may or may not actually furnish their chosen patsy with any details regarding what to do.
<Cleric>, selects and worships a deity or other force, taking power simply by dint of extreme worship and belief. Their discipline usually also gives them combat prowess.

Both (or just arcane):
The Wizard (Mage? Theurge?), is someone who uses basically cheat-codes for the universe, taking spells from those casters who have spells naturally and emulating their motions and voices. They write these down with codified rules, like writing music. The problem is that spells destroy the medium on which they are inscribed, meaning you have to keep writing down the spells on new pieces of paper/hide/wood. They can cast any spell, but they must a) find it, copying it from someone who performs it or finding it written down, and b) learn it, since it takes a lot of practice to actually nail the movements. Wizards would have technical access to any spell, but could only learn a certain number before they can't quite remember how to do them anymore.

So basically, we would have a powerful and narrow arcane class, powerful and narrow divine class, versatile but less powerful arcane class, and versatile but less powerful divine class, with wizard tying everything together. The wizard would be the only one which prepares its spells, and I think we should make obtaining new spells harder for a Wizard than it is, as a method of balance. Each one of these classes would be set apart by additional class details, not just which type and flavor of casting they do.

I selected names based on which class fits closest to the idea in 3E, not necessarily what fits best.

EDIT: Are ACF's going to be a regular thing? I should think we can make these classes flexible enough to not require that sort of thing. Also, assuming divine and arcane spells are different, the Favored Soul-type class and the Sorcerer-type class are going to need to be balanced differently.

As for Clerics, toning down the combat ability is probably going to happen, but you have to give them something since the entire reason they added it in the first place was to combat the "2 Rogues 1 Fighter and 3 Wizards" style of party that ignores the healers entirely.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-01-17, 07:54 PM
Throw these out entirely.

Clerics: To state the number of reasons why they shouldnt exist in implementation requires an entire book, the least of which is that Paladin is supposed to be half their entire role. Use priests.

Favored Souls: Should be an ACF for Sorcerer, not a class.

Wizard: Close, but the concept is too broad. Wizard are supposed to have massive spell knowledges, A Mage is supposed to have a focus, if it refers to a character more specifically then just as an alternative term for spellcaster.

Thanks for the abrasive thoughts, but I respectfully disagree. I think that most 3.5 classes (fighter aside) are iconic enough to be their own archetypes. It's our job, as designers, to give each its mechanical niche, and I think that's very doable.

----------

Coner77, I don't think that any class should have unlimited casting in combat-useful time. I like, as a compromise, the idea of rituals-- the same spells, but with loooooong casting times. It provides the intended flexibility of "we need X situational spell for Y task? I've got you covered" without getting into "I have the perfect spell for each encounter" terrain. (My wizard 'brew where I introduced the idea is still one of my favorites)

Incidentally, if you're interested in writing feats, go ahead and make a thread.

PairO'Dice, I understand what you're saying, and I agree. Do you have more precise suggestions?

One worry, along the above lines: both skill tricks and feats should be adding new abilities, rather than providing numerical boosts-- that's a point I think most can agree on. We might want to also nail down some kind of guideline for differentiating what should be a feat, what a skill trick, and what's the exclusive property of class abilities. Maybe feats are exclusively combat-related or class-specific, while skill tricks are for out-of-combat stuff?

tarkisflux
2013-01-17, 09:45 PM
For what it's worth Grod (which I suspect isn't all that much in this context), I sort of agree with toapat on the cleric thing. It has a lot of overlap with the paladin IMO. They both wear heavy armor, hang out on the front lines, and beat up the enemies of the faith. The paladin just gets some class features to do that while the cleric has to rely on spells. But very similar role with different tools doesn't seem the best use of having separate classes. So if you're going to revamp classes anyway, making them more distinct seems reasonable. There's a bunch of ways to separate them, but I prefer a cloistered style cleric to make them more of a backline spellcaster myself.

Just my 2cp

Edit: This involves opening up the paladin chassy to non-LG characters and faiths so you don't lose the holy smashy guy archetype. So if you're not planning on doing that, please ignore the above.

Dienekes
2013-01-17, 09:47 PM
Thanks for the abrasive thoughts, but I respectfully disagree. I think that most 3.5 classes (fighter aside) are iconic enough to be their own archetypes. It's our job, as designers, to give each its mechanical niche, and I think that's very doable.

That said, I do kind of agree with him on the cleric and the paladin stepping on each others toes. Personally, I don't see the need for 2 heavily armored divine casters, and would make the cleric more of a priest type.

Though, I don't see why there's a difference between wizard and mage, they both just mean magic user to me, and I don't get the quibble over names in any case. Once a good base class is made call the bloody thing whatever you want, I don't care so long as it's a magic user. And the Favored Soul as an ACF for the Sorcerer I can take or leave. Personally I always thought that the sorcerer probably should have just been an ACF for the wizard, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to fight for it.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-01-17, 11:44 PM
The main difference as I see it between the paladin and cleric is that the paladin is a champion of good, and the cleric is a champion of god. (Also, yes, spells verses class features)

But yeah, moving the cleric away from a primary-melee class isn't a bad idea, though I'd had the idea of making favored souls the main divine caster. If I did shift clerics to primary casters-- maybe all spells known from 3 domains, plus 2-3 freely chosen spells/ spell level-- then yes, the favored soul could become a sorcerer ACF, with appropriate divine heritage. Taking us back down to the core 11. I wouldn't mind 12, for the sake of round numbers, but I can live with 11.

Maybe promote some kind of arcane gish to complement the paladin?

Oh, and yeah, renaming the wizard does nothing but confuse people and lose iconic-ness.

Dienekes
2013-01-18, 12:00 AM
Honestly I think before the conversation on favored souls vs clerics vs paladins, and sorcerers vs wizards continues we (meaning you guys doing all the actual work when I'm not butting my head in) should probably finalize exactly what the magic systems are. Will there be spontaneous vs vancian? Some sort of spell limit per encounter solution? Stealing spell seeds from Fax Celestia? Skill based like Truenamers, but you know done well? And from there decide a way to mix and match these systems with various divine and arcane classes.

toapat
2013-01-18, 12:26 AM
Thanks for the abrasive thoughts, but I respectfully disagree. I think that most 3.5 classes (fighter aside) are iconic enough to be their own archetypes. It's our job, as designers, to give each its mechanical niche, and I think that's very doable.

the reason for pulling out cleric is because no matter how much you want to say it is iconic, the name is tied in fantasy to a Battle Priest class. There may be a mechanical niche for such a class, such as duskblade, but it is very hard to balance a battle priest with a Holy warrior. Thats why you just cut out the middle man and make them regular priests, so you dont have the mechanical overlap.
It is easier to balance a Paladin against a Blackguard then it is to balance Either against the Cleric. The cleric already has twice the design space because they are both Holy Warrior and Battlepriest


Favored Soul: Cant see justification for being a unique class. their fluff difference from sorcerer is that instead of having magic in your life, some god wanted you to be their puppet from birth, so you have had magic your entire life.

Wizard: Carries certain connotations that lead to too many options, Mage is more accurate for what should be implemented.


Though, I don't see why there's a difference between wizard and mage, they both just mean magic user to me, and I don't get the quibble over names in any case. Once a good base class is made call the bloody thing whatever you want, I don't care so long as it's a magic user. And the Favored Soul as an ACF for the Sorcerer I can take or leave. Personally I always thought that the sorcerer probably should have just been an ACF for the wizard, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to fight for it.

The difference is in scope:

A wizard knows A large portion of magic, they can cast some sort of Everything

A Mage, when reffering to a specific class instead of "Someone who casts spells in a dress", reffers to a learned spellcaster who has a narrow specialization. Its actually a stronger class in flavor simply because the wizard solidly places a toilet on the concept of Magic being Strange, complex, and mysterious.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-01-18, 12:31 AM
Honestly I think before the conversation on favored souls vs clerics vs paladins, and sorcerers vs wizards continues we (meaning you guys doing all the actual work when I'm not butting my head in) should probably finalize exactly what the magic systems are. Will there be spontaneous vs vancian? Some sort of spell limit per encounter solution? Stealing spell seeds from Fax Celestia? Skill based like Truenamers, but you know done well? And from there decide a way to mix and match these systems with various divine and arcane classes.

My proposed magic system is posted on the first page. It's spell-point based, with slow regeneration over the day and fast at night. I'm not planning to include any prepared casters for reasons of Balance and Speed of Play.

topat, you keep using the term "mage" as though it means something, when as far as I can tell it's a synonym of the word "spellcaster." One of the central principals of G&G is minimum disconnect from 3.5. Rebalancing the wizard class? Necessary disconnect. Arbitrarily changing the name? Unnecessary disconnect.

Conor77
2013-01-18, 02:54 AM
Okay, can we grab our equines on the whole "Cleric vs. Paladin" thing? Yes, they end up getting butted together in regular 3E, but Cleric doesn't need to go around in heavy armor and beat people up, Wizards just added that for the purpose of heading off a situation like in Team Fortress 2, where everyone plays Spy when the team needs Medics. If it needs to be more priestly, then perhaps remove the automatic armor proficiency? make them spend feats to gain it, perhaps, rather than remove the possibility of them donning armor at all (which is, I suspect, where this conversation is headed).

As far as Wizard, I think it must remain as it is, a generalized spellcaster. Forcing focus on a school is a cheap way of producing balance; there are more elegant options available, such as Grod's rituals or my proposed economic penalties. I for one like tying the Wizard to costly books, inks, and papers, because it reflects the scholarly nature of such casters, and also makes preparation a huge necessity for them.

So, assuming you'll read more stuff I suggest, here's a proposed bill of ideas for each of those character classes:

Barbarian- Takes hits, gives hits. Solves problems, in combat and out, with violence. Wind material from Dungeoncrasher fighter in here, as well as expanding Rage and giving bonuses to Intimidate.

Bard- Mostly as is, though I think Bardic Music could use a buff, so that all uses of the abilities are worth spending a use on. Also, I like the idea of Bards having a tiny pool of spell points, that regenerate fast. So they can only use maybe one or two spells per encounter, but even if they drain themselves of magic, can be full again in a few hours.

Cleric- One who's Belief shapes reality. These guys (in certain universes) are the ones from whose minds sprang deities. These guys believe things so hard that their prayer affects the cosmos. mechanically, I envision a basic caster with access to most of the divine spell list, which forms most of his options, though I think he should be able to cast healing spells at free or sharply reduced spell point costs.

Druid- Wild-Wizards, who practice their craft in the spaces between the civilized people, some to protect the wild, others merely to bend it to their will. They mix Arcane and Divine influence, casting nature-related spells from both(mostly divine, simply because it has more nature-spells), as well as changing shape into numerous creatures (the shapeshift variant has some huge holes that we need to patch up, but basically that) and having animals aid them (just reduce the amount of bonuses the Animal Companion gets, so its more like a normal animal of its kind; think helper/familiar unless they boost it with spells/feats)

Fighter- The Soldier. The Special Forces. The guy who runs up the beach at the bunkers (a bit anachronistic, you get the idea). The Fighter should be tough, and hit hard, and be smart, and just be good at leveraging any sort of advantage into any sort of situation. I would reduce the weird obsession with making the Fighter a specialization class, and instead let him be the guy who uses a spear to stab one enemy, an axe to chop another, and a dagger to gut a third. since we are removing reliance on +whatever items, Fighter should be able to use any weapon interchangeably, though there is of course his signature awesome-cool weapon or what-have-you.

Favored Soul- Cue Adam Jensen: They didn't ask for this. Somehow, one god or another got the idea that this guy was a good pick for a champion, so they granted them immense power, with the catch that they have to do as their deity does (in most cases). I would let these guys pick a specialization, and then let them spend fistfuls of spell points to boost their power to ludicrous levels. Unless what they are doing is aligned with their god, they run out fast.

Monk- Seems a lot of disagreement here. Basically, someone who uses martial arts. This can be very broad, but in general they are fast, light, and they hit hard (I think these guys should be masters of combat maneuvers rather than dealing direct damage with fists, though that should be an option).

Paladin- The men of iron will. Where others fall, pure dedication causes a Paladin to move onward. Their sheer fighting spirit burns bright enough to cause semi-magical changes in the world,which they put to use forging ahead of them and helping them fell every obstacle the come across. (No more Paladin spellcasting please! Unless we vastly upgrade their spell selection, it seems like all paladin spells do the same thing, over and over again. We can just fold those benefits into the class, while simultaneously making it easier to write one as an exemplar of, say, evil, or chaos)

Ranger- light, agile, wild-scout. Knows everything there is to know about the wilderness. They are usually competent, skilled, and efficient.

Rogue- These guys do it all; Murderin', Stealin', Jimmyin'. The Rogues, in the abscence of a true "Factotum" type class, should get skill-use... down. Perhaps wizards are better at intellectual skill use, but these guys should be good at acrobatics and stealth, and things. Also, as per Grod's fix, they need to get waaaaaay better at hiding and Sneak Attacking at the higher levels. I'd also like to see Sneak Attacking be good with any weapon-set, not just volley-archery and TWFing.

Sorcerer- Specialized Arcane casters through bloodline. I think that mechanically, these guys should just have spell points. Tons of em. More spell points than you could shake a stick at. The catch comes from their limited spell-list, which they can only expand by using other casters and "channeling" power through them (that ability might be a bit hokey, I just thought it would encourage teamwork)

Wizard- Magic through study. Very, very few spell points. The few that they have can be used to cast various spells on the fly, but the only other spells they can cast are a specific allotment that they carefully prepare in the morning, no more than 7 or 8 or so. These spell-sheets, copied from spellbooks, are expensive, and take time to use, but can be any spell you want to cast. Buffer this with extra abilities and the gradual unlocking of "shifting" your rituals by writing them differently,causing different effects.

Only my 2 cp.

Eldan
2013-01-18, 07:19 AM
Do we really have ot start the Mage discussion again?

Toapat, no one but you uses those definitions of Mage and Wizard. No one has ever heard of them. No one will use them.

Morty
2013-01-18, 11:55 AM
The cleric being a heavily armored secondary combatant is pretty much a relic of the old versions of D&D. I think this revision needs to move away from it if you want it to be a real, actual upgrade to D&D. And if you use spell points anyway, is there any point in there being a Favored Soul class?

Now, my interest in this is purely theoretical, but I think that when designing classes in a class-based system, it's useful to forget about "roles" every once in a while and focus on concepts. Are all character concepts that are typical for heroic fantasy covered by one of the classes?

Eldan
2013-01-18, 11:58 AM
When I think cleric, I still think old man in a robe shoving his cross in a vampire's face. Guy in heavy armour with divine power is "paladin".

Grod_The_Giant
2013-01-18, 12:15 PM
The masses have spoken, and I, the king, have heard your pleas. Henceforth, the cleric shall be like unto an elderly priest, and yea, shall wield spellfire in greater proportion than any other of the divine persuasion.

tarkisflux
2013-01-18, 12:50 PM
The masses have spoken, and I, the king, have heard your pleas. Henceforth, the cleric shall be like unto an elderly priest, and yea, shall wield spellfire in greater proportion than any other of the divine persuasion.

I've seen a lot of people asking at that, but no one really taking up the flip side of it where the paladin archetype needs to be expanded beyond blackguard to fill in the hole.

So for those of you who want the change, does the armored holy warrior get expanded to include non-LG faiths (aside from blackguard)? Does there just get to be an archetype hole and you don't get to have heavily armored divine warriors for some alignments / faiths? Or would it be better to only reduce the clerics combat capacity a small bit and move the paladin away instead, possibly to something without spells or something more like the crusader?

Grod_The_Giant
2013-01-18, 12:58 PM
I'm thinking of changing the paladin to any Good, at the very least, with class features focused on protecting and healing allies. Blackguard would be a rather substantial ACF, but is an option.

Also, probably a "paladin of the faith" ACF of some sort, to reflect the champion of a faith vs champion of GoodTM.

toapat
2013-01-18, 01:07 PM
Toapat, no one but you uses those definitions of Mage and Wizard. No one has ever heard of them. No one will use them.

To which my retort is, what is your cross-reference of fantasy literature?

Morty
2013-01-18, 01:12 PM
The only distinction between the terms "mage" and "wizard" is that of etymology, which is meaningless in the context of a tabletop game. You could take the 3rd edition PHB and replace all instances of "wizard" with "mage". There would be absolutely no difference.

Now, for some actually relevant discussion - I think the question "What does a Paladin bring to the table that a Fighter/Cleric multiclass does not?" is one very much worth asking. Which isn't to say that the Paladin class needs to be removed, just that a thorough discussion of its themes and concepts will help with making it stand on its own.

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-01-18, 01:27 PM
So for those of you who want the change, does the armored holy warrior get expanded to include non-LG faiths (aside from blackguard)? Does there just get to be an archetype hole and you don't get to have heavily armored divine warriors for some alignments / faiths? Or would it be better to only reduce the clerics combat capacity a small bit and move the paladin away instead, possibly to something without spells or something more like the crusader?

The way I generally handle it in my games is to have a "divine champion" class for holy warrior types, which is like a cleric in that it has a generic base and is then customized to the individual cause it champions. The paladins of different alignment, blackguard, and other martial/divine classes are then differentiated from that base the same way domains differentiate clerics and wizard ACFs differentiate specialists.

I like that method of doing things because "armored holy warrior" is an archetype that multiple causes/faiths/alignments should get but "paladin" is something people associate with LG, and I'm sure you remember the ****storm that happened when 4e made "paladins" of any alignment. If a LG divine champion is a "paladin," a LE one is a "blackguard," a CE one is a "death knight," and so forth, that preserves the archetype (and player expectations) while not limiting the paladin niche to LG causes.


Now, for some actually relevant discussion - I think the question "What does a Paladin bring to the table that a Fighter/Cleric multiclass does not?" is one very much worth asking. Which isn't to say that the Paladin class needs to be removed, just that a thorough discussion of its themes and concepts will help with making it stand on its own.

I'd say the reason everyone just says to play a cleric/fighter instead of a paladin in 3e is the CoDzilla phenomenon. In AD&D, having great saves, good attack and damage, several immunities, and other combat-related perks with (limited) divine casting was great, but nowadays a cleric can get all that via buffs. If most of the fighter-obsoleting self-buffs are removed or toned down (as they should be, since the G&G cleric is going the cloistered route now), then where the fighter has a lot of offense and some utility and the cleric has a lot of support and some offense, the paladin as the martial/divine hybrid with both martial offense and divine utility/defense fits in nicely.

toapat
2013-01-18, 01:31 PM
Now, for some actually relevant discussion - I think the question "What does a Paladin bring to the table that a Fighter/Cleric multiclass does not?" is one very much worth asking. Which isn't to say that the Paladin class needs to be removed, just that a thorough discussion of its themes and concepts will help with making it stand on its own.

Do you really think original etymology has any correlation to how people use terms now?

short answer:

A fighter/priest multiclass can bring a Battle Priest to the table. Battle Priests use spells for offense and equipment for defense primarily.

A Paladin cant, because as a base concept they are Holy Warriors. Holy Warriors use Equipment and training for offense and Spells for defense primarily.

Morty
2013-01-18, 01:42 PM
I'd say the reason everyone just says to play a cleric/fighter instead of a paladin in 3e is the CoDzilla phenomenon. In AD&D, having great saves, good attack and damage, several immunities, and other combat-related perks with (limited) divine casting was great, but nowadays a cleric can get all that via buffs. If most of the fighter-obsoleting self-buffs are removed or toned down (as they should be, since the G&G cleric is going the cloistered route now), then where the fighter has a lot of offense and some utility and the cleric has a lot of support and some offense, the paladin as the martial/divine hybrid with both martial offense and divine utility/defense fits in nicely.

I was speaking in terms of concepts more than mechanics. A Paladin is a holy warrior enchancing his martial skills with divine magic. Why is it a separate class rather than a Fighter/Cleric multiclass? Again, I'm not saying that there is no point in having a Paladin class. My point is that if there is a Paladin class, there needs to be something that separates it from a Fighter/Cleric in terms of concept, not just the skills it brings to the table.


Do you really think original etymology has any correlation to how people use terms now?


Of course it doesn't, which is what people have been telling you all along - "mage" and "wizard" mean the same thing.

Eldan
2013-01-18, 01:47 PM
The only distinction between the terms "mage" and "wizard" is that of etymology, which is meaningless in the context of a tabletop game. You could take the 3rd edition PHB and replace all instances of "wizard" with "mage". There would be absolutely no difference.

Poor silent iwizard :smalltongue:
But then, it's a classic wit ha legacy in older editions.

toapat
2013-01-18, 01:52 PM
Of course it doesn't, which is what people have been telling you all along - "mage" and "wizard" mean the same thing.

not in modern fantasy.

Hell, when people say gandalf is only lvl 10, they are looking at what he is doing from a lowest possible level perspective, which is wrong. Hes doing high level stuff for any spellcaster, which doesnt actually have correlation in 3.5 simply because there are no spells to break materials down into their component elements.

Eldan
2013-01-18, 01:58 PM
Not only that, but mage is almost never used in D&D. And I really can't think of any fiction where the word is used.

Looking at my bookshelf: Dresden Files uses wizards (trained), sorcerers (untrained) and warlock (evil sorcerer). Earthsea uses wizard. Discworld uses wizard (male), witch (female) and sourcerer (crazy godlike). Warhammer doesn't specify much, but sorcerers seems to be used more often for the chaos side, even if they are interchangeable. Wheel of time uses made up words, as does the Kingkiller Chronicles and pretty much anything by Sanderson, Hobb or Mieville. In Lankhmar, Mouser is a Wizard's apparentice, if not very good at it, the word sorcerer has probably been used. Lord of the Rings has wizards.
Video games: Witcher had Sorcerers. I think mages too, but I played it ages ago and I don't think it was ever properly defined. Morrowind clearly has wizards. Sorcerer, Battlemage, Spellsword, etc. are different kinds of wizards. I played World of warcraft for a short time, years ago when it came out, but as far as I konw, there are only Warlock and Wizard classes.

Now can we please retire this stupid debate? We're sticking with the terms D&D uses.

sengmeng
2013-01-18, 02:24 PM
May I jump in to say that fighter should exist as a class for the same reason that anyone takes it? Which is to say, they want extra feats to supplement their melee character's class abilities. I think it should exist as a Prestige-class whose only requirement is a level higher than 1st, grants a feat every level, and does not grant weapon or armor proficiencies.

I also think there should be a 3/4 BAB, choice of good save, d8 hit dice version who does the same thing, but you can choose any feat you qualify for.

On the other hand, you should take my suggestions with a grain of salt since I would get rid of classes completely, and use a modular system to put together your character based on 2 archetypes that you apply to them, some of which could be incompatible with each other. Things like Stealthy, Armored, Divine Caster, Tough, Arcane Caster, Martial (TWF, THF, SnB), Specializes on Type X Enemy, Speedy, and maybe Skilled. Then there could be other archetypes that are more of a penalty and grant you an additional archetype: Unarmed/Underequipped, Weak, Moral Code, Unskilled, etc.

So a cleric is Armored, Divine Caster, with partial affinity for Tough and Martial, bought with Moral Code.

Rogues are Skilled and Stealthy.

Barbarian is Tough, Martial, maybe Skilled, and Underequipped.

Monk should be Tough, Martial, Skilled, Speedy, and Unarmed

Wizard could be Arcane Caster and Skilled; or Really Strong Arcane Caster, and Weak (archetypes need to be equalized a little, or perhaps count doubly or triply).

Something like Armored and Stealthy should be impossible, but normally incompatible archetypes could be combined by paying for them with a penalty archetype; so Armored, Stealthy, and Moral Code would be acceptable.

Dienekes
2013-01-18, 03:10 PM
The way I generally handle it in my games is to have a "divine champion" class for holy warrior types, which is like a cleric in that it has a generic base and is then customized to the individual cause it champions. The paladins of different alignment, blackguard, and other martial/divine classes are then differentiated from that base the same way domains differentiate clerics and wizard ACFs differentiate specialists.

I like that method of doing things because "armored holy warrior" is an archetype that multiple causes/faiths/alignments should get but "paladin" is something people associate with LG, and I'm sure you remember the ****storm that happened when 4e made "paladins" of any alignment. If a LG divine champion is a "paladin," a LE one is a "blackguard," a CE one is a "death knight," and so forth, that preserves the archetype (and player expectations) while not limiting the paladin niche to LG causes.

Why not just call the base class Templar or something and at level 1 you pick an alignment specialty which will give slightly different sets of abilities.
LG: Paladin NG: Crusader CG: Savior
LN: Justicar TN: Knight of Balance CN: Freeguard
LE: Blackguard NE: Doombringer CE: Deathknight

Come up with better names of course. Or if that's too much get rid of the neutrals.

As for dividing what these classes do, throwing an idea out there would it be easier to rearrange them like this:

Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric are the classes that fully invest in combat, skills, arcane and divine magic.
Paladins: Cleric/Fighter
Bard: Rogue/Wizard
[Warmage]: Fighter/Wizard
Ranger: Fighter/Rogue
[Preacher]: Cleric/Rogue
[Theurge]: Wizard/Cleric

The downside would be the lack of Druids, Barbarians, Sorcerers, and magicless Rangers. Honestly though, Druids always just seemed Clerics who worship nature, even moreso now that we're ditching the heavily armored Cleric route, and Barbarians should probably be just a bunch of berserker options available to the fighter. And again I see Sorcerers as just an ACF of Wizards unless they're changed a lot.

Anyway, just a thought, see if you guys like it.

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-01-18, 04:07 PM
I was speaking in terms of concepts more than mechanics. A Paladin is a holy warrior enchancing his martial skills with divine magic. Why is it a separate class rather than a Fighter/Cleric multiclass? Again, I'm not saying that there is no point in having a Paladin class. My point is that if there is a Paladin class, there needs to be something that separates it from a Fighter/Cleric in terms of concept, not just the skills it brings to the table.

Sorry, I guess I wasn't as clear on the difference as I see it. Here's my view on hybrid classes:The distinction between the hybrid classes and main classes--whether paladin vs. cleric, duskblade vs. sorcerer, or something else--is what the "active" and "passive" components of the class are. When building a gestalt character, the usual advice is to have one "active" class which requires your standard and full-round actions and will be your primary role and one "passive" class to enhance your stats, shore up weaknesses, take up smaller actions, and be your secondary role, and the same applies to multiclassing and hybrid classes. Cleric is a very active class: he needs to use actions on everything, casting self-buffs to do melee well, casting buffing spells to support allies, and so forth. Fighter is a very passive class: feats and other features tend to modify offensive actions rather than requiring actions of their own (or should be changed to modify attacks instead of requiring actions, to let them stack better) and defensive/utility stuff tends to be always-on rather than activated.

So the kind of paladin-esque cleric who uses his divine magic to substitute for martial skill is indeed nothing more than a cleric/fighter who buffs up and wades into melee: a cleric/fighter has active divine abilities and passive martial abilities, meaning the cleric's actions will be dominated by doing cleric-y stuff, whether utility or combat, with the fighter being there in the background. To deserve a slot as its own class, a paladin should be exactly the opposite: its martial abilities are the active ones (smiting, debuffing with dispel evil, and all that), while its divine abilities are all passive/constant/off-action ones (auras, swift-action healing, and all that). It should be a warblade//marshal rather than a cleric//fighter, if that makes sense.

Similarly, looking at the hybrid suggestions Dienekes made, warmage probably wouldn't be a good class of its own because a wizard/fighter is already an active blaster first and a passive armored weapon-user second. If you want a fighter/wizard hybrid, it should flip those and offer you an active martial/passive caster class, so something more like a duskblade/abjurant champion that fights stuff first and casts stuff second. And so on and so forth--hybrid classes should complement the X/Y multiclasses, not overlap them.

Why not just call the base class Templar or something and at level 1 you pick an alignment specialty which will give slightly different sets of abilities.
LG: Paladin NG: Crusader CG: Savior
LN: Justicar TN: Knight of Balance CN: Freeguard
LE: Blackguard NE: Doombringer CE: Deathknight

Yep, that's how it works, doesn't really matter what you call it. I'd open it beyond just "the alignment class" so you can make an armored holy fire warrior or the like, just like you can have a generic priest of fire or death or whatever, but that's up to the design team.

Dienekes
2013-01-18, 04:22 PM
Sorry, I guess I wasn't as clear on the difference as I see it. Here's my view on hybrid classes:The distinction between the hybrid classes and main classes--whether paladin vs. cleric, duskblade vs. sorcerer, or something else--is what the "active" and "passive" components of the class are. When building a gestalt character, the usual advice is to have one "active" class which requires your standard and full-round actions and will be your primary role and one "passive" class to enhance your stats, shore up weaknesses, take up smaller actions, and be your secondary role, and the same applies to multiclassing and hybrid classes. Cleric is a very active class: he needs to use actions on everything, casting self-buffs to do melee well, casting buffing spells to support allies, and so forth. Fighter is a very passive class: feats and other features tend to modify offensive actions rather than requiring actions of their own (or should be changed to modify attacks instead of requiring actions, to let them stack better) and defensive/utility stuff tends to be always-on rather than activated.

So the kind of paladin-esque cleric who uses his divine magic to substitute for martial skill is indeed nothing more than a cleric/fighter who buffs up and wades into melee: a cleric/fighter has active divine abilities and passive martial abilities, meaning the cleric's actions will be dominated by doing cleric-y stuff, whether utility or combat, with the fighter being there in the background. To deserve a slot as its own class, a paladin should be exactly the opposite: its martial abilities are the active ones (smiting, debuffing with dispel evil, and all that), while its divine abilities are all passive/constant/off-action ones (auras, swift-action healing, and all that). It should be a warblade//marshal rather than a cleric//fighter, if that makes sense.

Similarly, looking at the hybrid suggestions Dienekes made, warmage probably wouldn't be a good class of its own because a wizard/fighter is already an active blaster first and a passive armored weapon-user second. If you want a fighter/wizard hybrid, it should flip those and offer you an active martial/passive caster class, so something more like a duskblade/abjurant champion that fights stuff first and casts stuff second. And so on and so forth--hybrid classes should complement the X/Y multiclasses, not overlap them.

For the Fighter/Wizard thing, I was actually just going in alphabetical order, which I then forgot to do in the Theurge.

While your concept makes sense, and proves once more that you know more about this stuff than I probably ever will. Isn't the purpose of making these mixed classes as opposes to just multiclassing to allow an easier synthesis of the active and passive actions of both styles of classes? Maybe adding single-target spells to the end of their attacks or something cool and more original.

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-01-18, 04:53 PM
Isn't the purpose of making these mixed classes as opposes to just multiclassing to allow an easier synthesis of the active and passive actions of both styles of classes? Maybe adding single-target spells to the end of their attacks or something cool and more original.

Well, the idea here is that the four classic classes have a fairly strong slant towards the active or passive end of things--fighters and rogues have mostly passive abilities, wizards and clerics have mostly active abilities. Thus, if you're filling out a matrix of X primary/Y secondary hybrid classes, the arcane/martial, divine/martial, arcane/skills, and divine/skills slots are essentially the same in terms of playstyle, theme, etc. as wizard/fighter, cleric/fighter, wizard/rogue, and cleric/rogue; there's no sense in making full classes for that when you can simply make feats, ACFs, etc. for those multiclass builds. The reverse--martial/arcane, martial/divine, skills/arcane, and skills/divine--play quite differently from the multiclasses, and so having full hybrid classes in those slots makes sense.

If you look at the 3e warmage, it plays exactly like like a blasting-focused battle sorcerer: both spend their time blasting at range, both use simple weapons and light armor, both can metamagic their spells pretty well, etc. The difference between the two is a bit more damage and a few more spells known for the warmage, which are already things the sorcerer can pick up in various ways, and disregarding the exact number of spells and metamagic feats known the two are basically indistinguishable.

If you look at the duskblade, though, it plays quite differently than a battle sorcerer or sorcerer/fighter does, in terms of whether it likes to be in melee or at range, what proportion of time is spent attacking vs. casting spells, what tactics it excels with, etc. The things that make the duskblade unique (full-attack channeling, free quickens, etc.) could be made generic, but (A) they'd be broken if able to be added to any possible fighter/sorcerer while they work well with the duskblade's set list and (B) they're a lot more focused in application than the warmage's "do extra damage" and "get extra metamagic" class features.

It's a matter of scope. The warmage could be a sorcerer ACF easily, the duskblade would be hard to convert to a series of balanced feats/ACFs for a sorcerer/fighter. If the multiclass-like hybrids are made their own classes, either they're redundant (in which case there's wasted effort) or they have a few signature abilities that are nice to have (in which case you make the corresponding multiclassed character feel like he's missing out and worsen the prerequisite problem, when you could have just make it available to the multiclass in the first place).

Morty
2013-01-18, 05:46 PM
Sorry, I guess I wasn't as clear on the difference as I see it. Here's my view on hybrid classes:The distinction between the hybrid classes and main classes--whether paladin vs. cleric, duskblade vs. sorcerer, or something else--is what the "active" and "passive" components of the class are. When building a gestalt character, the usual advice is to have one "active" class which requires your standard and full-round actions and will be your primary role and one "passive" class to enhance your stats, shore up weaknesses, take up smaller actions, and be your secondary role, and the same applies to multiclassing and hybrid classes. Cleric is a very active class: he needs to use actions on everything, casting self-buffs to do melee well, casting buffing spells to support allies, and so forth. Fighter is a very passive class: feats and other features tend to modify offensive actions rather than requiring actions of their own (or should be changed to modify attacks instead of requiring actions, to let them stack better) and defensive/utility stuff tends to be always-on rather than activated.

So the kind of paladin-esque cleric who uses his divine magic to substitute for martial skill is indeed nothing more than a cleric/fighter who buffs up and wades into melee: a cleric/fighter has active divine abilities and passive martial abilities, meaning the cleric's actions will be dominated by doing cleric-y stuff, whether utility or combat, with the fighter being there in the background. To deserve a slot as its own class, a paladin should be exactly the opposite: its martial abilities are the active ones (smiting, debuffing with dispel evil, and all that), while its divine abilities are all passive/constant/off-action ones (auras, swift-action healing, and all that). It should be a warblade//marshal rather than a cleric//fighter, if that makes sense.

Similarly, looking at the hybrid suggestions Dienekes made, warmage probably wouldn't be a good class of its own because a wizard/fighter is already an active blaster first and a passive armored weapon-user second. If you want a fighter/wizard hybrid, it should flip those and offer you an active martial/passive caster class, so something more like a duskblade/abjurant champion that fights stuff first and casts stuff second. And so on and so forth--hybrid classes should complement the X/Y multiclasses, not overlap them.


Yes, I suppose I see where you're coming from now. This way of differentiating between hybrid classes and multiclass ones makes sense.

Conor77
2013-01-18, 05:59 PM
@sengmeng, but sort of everybody: We are trying to improve upon 3.5, not make a new system. We should keep that in mind, and not shift the classes around so much.

~Anyways~

I think Paladins should be less "holy warriors" since clearly there are different kinds, and more "determined warrior". While the Fighter has a lot of grit in his heart, the Paladin is durable just because of how hard he tries. A Fighter/Cleric should have way, way different abilities, given that Clerics cast spells, and fighters fight. The paladin fights, assisted by his abilities. I think he should have less active things to do.

Anyways, I suddenly have a lot less time, but I should still be able to contribute here. I just can't do the feat thread...

toapat
2013-01-18, 08:11 PM
*snip*

No, what you dont get is that Holy Warrior is actually the mechanical build of paladin. Barring Duskblade and Hexblade, the published "gish" base classes in 3rd/3.5 are all Holy Warriors. The alternative for Holy Warrior is the Eldrich Knight/Battle Priest. Holy Warriors use more defensive spells, while Battle Priests have more offensive spells.

you can make anything active so long as you provide the mechanics. Its entirely a specific design that Paladin and Battle priest follow.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-01-18, 08:36 PM
OK, taking some of the discussion here into account:


Barbarian (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=227466)- the brutal, intuitive warrior. Mechanically, the class is focused around Rage, capable of taking and dealing high damage. Out of combat, he likes intimidation, mobility, and some nature stuff.
Bard- we know what a bard is, no problem here.
Cleric (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12348960&postcount=2)- Primary divine spellcaster, with spontaneous casting based off the deity's domains and a few spells of their own. Light armor proficiency, a medium attack bonus, and class features built around channeling positive/negative energy.
Druid (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=230514)- Shaman and manifestation/protector of nature. Spontaneous casting, the PHB2 Shapeshift variant, and a weakened animal companion can drop its power significantly.
Fighter (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14514029#post14514029)/Marshal- The professional warrior and general, with skills and knowledge beyond other warrior, and a focus on leadership, using either brains (Fighter) or charisma (Martial).
Favored Soul- A powerful caster operating on a direct link to their god. Spontaneous casting not limited to domains, along with channeled divine energy powers. (Turn undead, etc).
Monk- light, semi-mystic kung fu master.
Paladin (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12150015#post12150015)/Blackguard- Champion of Good or Evil. Both get spells and smites; the Paladin's class features are based around defending and healing, the Blackguard's around damage and debuffs. (He may eat some of the Hexblade)
Ranger- light, mobile warrior of nature. I'm not too attached to their magic, and would like to combine him with the scout (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14192508#post14192508).
Rogue- Stealthy, agile combatant and skillmonkey. Maybe steal some parts from the factotum (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=259254)?
Sorcerer (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=230721)/Favored Soul- Magic through the blood. More spell points than the wizard, with powers (and maybe bonus spells) based on their bloodline, and the ability to damage themselves to boost their spells. Favored Souls get most of the same class features, but a special heritage.
Wizard (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12623421&postcount=2)/Archivist- Magic through study. Fewer spell points than the sorcerer, and fewer absolute spells known, but with the ability to alter spells on the fly, and pack a "ritual book" they can cast from with extremely expended casting times (~10 minutes/spell level). The Archivist gets more-or-less identical class features, but casts from the cleric list.


A nice, arcane gish like the Duskblade probably has a place here as well.

toapat
2013-01-18, 08:54 PM
OK, taking some of the discussion here into account:


Barbarian (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=227466)- the brutal, intuitive warrior. Mechanically, the class is focused around Rage, capable of taking and dealing high damage. Out of combat, he likes intimidation, mobility, and some nature stuff.
Bard- we know what a bard is, no problem here.
Cleric (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12348960&postcount=2)- Primary divine spellcaster, with spontaneous casting based off the deity's domains and a few spells of their own. Light armor proficiency, a medium attack bonus, and class features built around channeling positive/negative energy.
Druid (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=230514)- Shaman and manifestation/protector of nature. Spontaneous casting, the PHB2 Shapeshift variant, and a weakened animal companion can drop its power significantly.
Fighter (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14514029#post14514029)/Marshal- The professional warrior and general, with skills and knowledge beyond other warrior, and a focus on leadership, using either brains (Fighter) or charisma (Martial).
Favored Soul- A powerful caster operating on a direct link to their god. Spontaneous casting not limited to domains, along with channeled divine energy powers. (Turn undead, etc).
Monk- light, semi-mystic kung fu master.
Paladin (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12150015#post12150015)/Blackguard- Champion of Good or Evil. Both get spells and smites; the Paladin's class features are based around defending and healing, the Blackguard's around damage and debuffs. (He may eat some of the Hexblade)
Ranger- light, mobile warrior of nature. I'm not too attached to their magic, and would like to combine him with the scout (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14192508#post14192508).
Rogue- Stealthy, agile combatant and skillmonkey. Maybe steal some parts from the factotum (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=259254)?
Sorcerer (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=230721)/Favored Soul- Magic through the blood. More spell points than the wizard, with powers (and maybe bonus spells) based on their bloodline, and the ability to damage themselves to boost their spells. Favored Souls get most of the same class features, but a special heritage.
Wizard (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12623421&postcount=2)/Archivist- Magic through study. Fewer spell points than the sorcerer, and fewer absolute spells known, but with the ability to alter spells on the fly, and pack a "ritual book" they can cast from with extremely expended casting times (~10 minutes/spell level). The Archivist gets more-or-less identical class features, but casts from the cleric list.


A nice, arcane gish like the Duskblade probably has a place here as well.

Add the not-Duskblade, perhaps make them also be the cavalier class. they will fill the Battle Priest roll

Unify: Cleric and Archivist, renamed the priest. Basically classes should not have such overlap.

Rename: Paladin/Blackguard to Templar, needs more thought then that.

I agree that the ranger could loose the spellcasting in exchange for having Skirmish inherently. their total spellcasting value consists of a 2nd level spell that duplicates the function of Swarm of Arrows, sneak attack, and they also get Freedom of Movement

Druid: loose the companion, Wildshape could probably remain un-nerfed so long as Natural Spell is gone

Conor77
2013-01-19, 02:22 AM
I actually think having set bonuses is nicer than turning into specific animals, making Shapeshifter Druid a better choice. I agree that the companion can be gotten rid of, with all the summoning spells the Druid gets. That said, Shapeshifter Druid needs more options badly. As-is, it doesn't even allow for a swimming shape, which is a gross oversight, really.

Also, Toapat: You keep on using our own definitions, as if they were common knowledge. I wasn't listing "Holy Warrior" as you defined it in that one post you made. I meant it as a general Smite Evil guy. The fact that you differentiate between Holy Warrior and Battle Priest as being basically the same, but with different spells, makes me not want to consider them valid separately. A Paladin should do both, really.

I only meant that all the crap about Paladins having different alignments could be done away with if you simply made a Paladin focused around determination, rather than "Good". He could detect opposite dispositions, and Smite those who followed them, and generally have a selection of abilities based on his beliefs. The only caveat might be that he can't be True Neutral or something, since he is so strong in his beliefs. I think that would work better than making two dichotomous classes like Paladin/Blackguard, where everything is tuned to those two extremes.

That and removing his spell list (his incredibly, stupendously repetitive spell list) would go a long way towards separating him from a Cleric/Fighter.

EDIT: I agree, I don't know that we need an archivist. Won't Clerics work basically the same way, with the removed armor and stuff? I say keep the Wizard as the Wizard, Cleric as Cleric (without armor, of course).

EDIT2: I also don't necessarily know about the Fighter/Marshal. I think people blow the "leader" aspect of Fighters over a lot. He should stay more a soldier, with possible feat chains devoted to Marshalling. That might allow someone to be a kind of "officer" fighter, but also just a knuckles-bruiser.

Eldan
2013-01-19, 06:07 AM
If I can make a suggestion: split the druid. There's a term in German: "Egg-laying wooly milk pig", i.e. a farm animal that does everything. Or by extension, anything that has every feature that can be had in a system.

The druid, even if all its parts were nerfed, has too many things. It's a nature caster, a shapeshifter and a minion commander all in one. Most other classes get one of those things.

I suggest:
Animal companion goes to the ranger or turns into a feat.
Nature casting goes to the cleric of nature gods.
Shapeshifting stays with the druid. Make him a mystical fighter. Give him a few slightly castery abilities of a mystical nature, then leave it at that.


Anyway, didn't we agree that we wanted to fix the basic system before we started on race and classes? I suggest we have a lookt at combat, skills and magic again before we go on with class design. Just to make sure we are happy with it.

Merchant
2013-01-19, 06:34 AM
Why should the druid shapeshift.?

I was inspired by both G&G as well as Domriso's list of magical systems. I am trying to create a RP pbp of a virtual fantasy game and I wished to make all the classes unique. Granted it has more free form siince this is more documented than having players just create their own personal class and give it a name.

I tried to pair certain classes together with certain systems. What if the clerics have a list of abilities called blessings and prayers which help perform 'miracles'. The trick though is to have general blessings and prayers as well as god/goddess unique blessings and prayers. I see a cleric doing their gods work. This seems to focus on alignment. The blessings could be a list of Domain powers that can be used a set number of days. But every time one prays to their god they can replenish one or some depending on the devotion put into that prayer (move-standard-full)

I put the Ranger, Druid, and had a Beast Master class, into a ... Sect called wildlings. This is just group name that has a set of different systems or abilities that each portrayed a different aspect.

I see the druid being a person of balance.
Use the elements earth, plant, fire, air, water. No animal companion. Give them abilities to connecto certain elements blindsense(air), tremorsense(earth)...not sure about the others. They get bonuses in natural terrain as well as the terrain actually tries to protect the druid. Trees, bushes, vines put themselves in the way as if animated. The air can help with ranged attacks. And to reiterate the idea of balance. If they use one element to a scertain degree. They have to use the other element to that degree as well. So they can't keep casting fire (though i don't think fire is very druid) and then have to use water to the same level. Kind of like how warlocks abilities are tiered. You use two lesser earth, you have to use the equivelent of air to 'restore' the balance. You can make it so that the number of ... 'communings'(?) are determined by level. level one you can only commune with an element twice before restoring the balance.

I thought it would be cool if the Barbarian had some kind of ancestral ability as well. Channelling their ancestors the closer they are to death. I am all for the rage, but it isn't enough. I think a barbarian should get stronger still as it is dying. So they become truly fiercesome when they are at death's gates.

Diablo 3 has War Cries for the barbarian. They seem to fit too. Is there such a big distinction from a barbarian war chief and a Marshal?

I saw you made a dice fighter. I am sorry didn't read what the dice were about. I'll have to go back. I see a fighter or whatever the equivalent being on here as having combos. Using your dice idea every time they hit they roll a dice and the number determines a certain effect. (stagger opponent, knockdown) or ... my original thought of combos was he gets another hit. So a fighter uses experience and training to just slash at the enemies.

I saw you change it to Knight though so ... it can be moved to that.

Morty
2013-01-19, 07:42 AM
If I can make a suggestion: split the druid. There's a term in German: "Egg-laying wooly milk pig", i.e. a farm animal that does everything. Or by extension, anything that has every feature that can be had in a system.

The druid, even if all its parts were nerfed, has too many things. It's a nature caster, a shapeshifter and a minion commander all in one. Most other classes get one of those things.


I agree, but there's no need to split classes. Instead, they should have features that are mutually exclusive.


@sengmeng, but sort of everybody: We are trying to improve upon 3.5, not make a new system. We should keep that in mind, and not shift the classes around so much.


That's an understandable attitude, but it might lead you to repeating 3.5's mistakes if you're not careful.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-01-19, 10:36 AM
My basic plan was:

1. Fundamental Changes: Fix underlying assumptions that can't be touched without a serious revision (combat math, save-or-lose conditions, useless skills, etc)
2. Cosmetic Changes: Spell rewrites, new and better feats, etc
3. Adapt per-existing class fixes. No need to re-invent the wheel when so many people, myself included, have spent so much time on wonderful fixes. Tier 2 casters should be dropped to what's now T3 by spell fixes, after all, and skill tricks should help boost T4/low T3's up as well.

So, in any case... yes. Your King requests that we table the "what's in a class?" discussions for the moment. For now... are the fundamental changes sound? (Combat, Conditions, Magic, and Skills sections on the front page)

Grod_The_Giant
2013-01-19, 03:26 PM
Also, skill tricks: here's an example idea to get an idea of power levels:

Mighty Leap (Athletics)
Requirements: 5 ranks of Athletics
Effect: When making an Athletics check to jump, the DC for the check doesn't double if you fail to move 20 feet in a straight line prior to jumping. If you do move 20 feet in a straight line before attempting a jump, you gain a +5 competence bonus on your check.

Leaps and Bounds
Requirement: 10 ranks of Athletics
Effect: The distance you travel as the result of jumps does not count against your movement speed for the round.

Touch the Stars
Requirements: 15 ranks of Athletics
Effect: The DC for a high jump is equal to the distance you wish to clear, rather than 4 times the distance to be cleared. You don't take damage when falling after a successful jump.

Eldan
2013-01-19, 05:34 PM
Honestly, still not that impressive. I can do all three wit ha simple level 1 spell, Levitate.

Morty
2013-01-19, 06:35 PM
Levitate is a 2nd level spell and takes a spell slot - or in case of this particular rewrite, spell points. I'm assuming spellcasters won't just get any spell they want like Wizards and Clerics, either. Really, directly comparing skill tricks you can do all day long to spells, which are a limited resource, isn't exactly a fair comparison.

Dienekes
2013-01-19, 06:47 PM
Levitate is a 2nd level spell and takes a spell slot - or in case of this particular rewrite, spell points. I'm assuming spellcasters won't just get any spell they want like Wizards and Clerics, either. Really, directly comparing skill tricks you can do all day long to spells, which are a limited resource, isn't exactly a fair comparison.

But here's the marker, how many times per day do you really need to jump that high in a campaign? Once? Twice? Maybe?

On the flip side, we could always just nerf Levitate.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-01-20, 11:31 AM
OK, maybe more like this:

Mighty Leap (Athletics)
Requirements: 5 ranks of Athletics
Effect: When making an Athletics check to jump, the DC for the check doesn't double if you fail to move 20 feet in a straight line prior to jumping. If you do move 20 feet in a straight line before attempting a jump, you gain a +5 competence bonus on your check.

Leaps and Bounds
Requirement: 10 ranks of Athletics
Effect: The DC for a high jump is equal to the distance you wish to clear, rather than 4 times the distance to be cleared. You don't take damage when falling after a successful jump.

Touch the Stars
Requirements: 15 ranks of Athletics
Effect: When rolling Athletics checks to determine the distance you jump, you leap 5 feet for every point of the result, instead of one. The distance you jump does not count towards your total movement speed for the round.

Conor77
2013-01-20, 03:42 PM
I like those skill tricks a lot. It seems more Wuxia-y at the higher levels, when casters get more and more spells to look cool with. It's like, if you want to spend the skill point, you can be the greatest at jumping.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-01-20, 03:51 PM
Second tier is wuxia. (10 ranks + 5 ability + 10 average d20 roll = an easy 25 feet straight up). Third tier is just silly. (15 ranks + 6 ability + 10 average roll = an easy 150 feet in any direction, no running start required).

Eldan
2013-01-20, 04:00 PM
Yea. I think this plays into a point I've been making for a while.

If you want to be Conan, your party wizard should be either Rincewind or Mouser.

If you want to play, I don't know, Harry Dresden, your party fighter should be Gilgamesh or Achilles.

Conor77
2013-01-20, 04:34 PM
Right, which is mainly a level thing. Like, level 5 wizard is Rincewind, level 5 Fighter is Conan, and then as the levels get up there, everything scales appropriately. Or, at least, it should. I think all the skill tricks should be somewhere in line with those Jump tricks, really. Allows for a lot more cool stuff.

Eldan
2013-01-20, 06:11 PM
Well, yes. The problem is, your wizard starts as Harry Potter and ends as Raistlin, while your fighter starts as Bob the redshirt and ends up as Conan.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-01-20, 06:19 PM
But we will fix that! Oh yes we will.

Right. So we have a good benchmark example for the power of skill tricks. Now for more. I'll start a new thread for those.

AttilaTheGeek
2013-02-23, 09:47 AM
*jumps into thread*

This seems like a great thing to do as a community, and I'd like to help out. I'm a Pathfinder player (not familiar with a lot of 3.5 stuff, but working on it) mostly interested in arcane magic, especially Evocations. Should I fill out a signup form or something from the last thread?

Grod_The_Giant
2013-02-23, 11:22 AM
*jumps into thread*

This seems like a great thing to do as a community, and I'd like to help out. I'm a Pathfinder player (not familiar with a lot of 3.5 stuff, but working on it) mostly interested in arcane magic, especially Evocations. Should I fill out a signup form or something from the last thread?

Heh, no, nothing so formal. Check out the magic (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14178993)threads (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=272399). And then, I guess start rewriting spells? That's the main task remaining on the arcane side, at least.

cameronpants
2013-03-18, 05:19 PM
I'd also like to join the team. I haven't posted much to the forums before, but I am a long time amd avid homebrewer. I read through both this and the old thread and have become quite taken with this whole idea. I woild love to start working on Skill Tricks and Spells, as well as magic items. Who is in charge of these areas? I will have time tonight and tomorrow to throw together ideas to PM to project managers.

On the subject of classes (I know it was tabled, but I'm new.)

On the whole intention of a class vs. mechanics of a class vs. connotation of a class discussion: a fighter/cleric and a paladin are not the same thing. Mechanically, sure, they both cast spells and possibly face-smash while buffed by divine oompha. However, one started as a man at arms, and everyday soldier, who found his faith and chose a different path. The paladin, however, has always faced temptation but chooses to lead as an example of what he believes is right. We should not be designing classes based on the potential of multiclassing.

For those interested:
I recently (a few months ago) decided to purge 3.5 of the classes I disliked, rewriting and fixing them all. This lead me to defining all classes by role and source. Each source had a separate subsystem to use and many classes used them is unique ways. I have truckloads of ideas for systems and classes.

Edit: Replying on my android while on a break at work. Apologies for grammar and spelling

Conor77
2013-03-18, 06:05 PM
Unfortunately, we decided to dump Skill Tricks, since there would be far more than we could ever make, and they sort of turned into "mini-feats" which kind of sucked. I am currently rewriting all the spells from core 3.5, but I've been going more slowly since I began, mostly because I am, right now, in finals week. I should have 3rd level spells done sometime this week.

EDIT: Also we are not opening the can of worms that is class design. We got enough of that earlier and it murdered the thread. Suffice it to say we'll wait for that stuff until spells, skills, and feats are written.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2013-03-18, 06:11 PM
Also we are not opening the can of worms that is class design. We got enough of that earlier and it murdered the thread. Suffice it to say we'll wait for that stuff until spells, skills, and feats are written.

That seems counterproductive, as class design informs spell and feat design more than those two systems inform class design. Still, best of luck.

Conor77
2013-03-18, 06:14 PM
Eh, from this side it doesn't seem like it. Casters' whole thing is spells, and I'm writing them, which means I am controlling directly what a spellcaster can do at a given level.

That and we are using what amounts to the same system as 3.5, we aren't building a new one. Feat and spell design can stay moderately the same.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-03-18, 09:02 PM
Conor77, you're working mostly on arcane spells, yes? Cameronpants, maybe you could look at divine-only spells? Or write some skill-based feats, which would do similar things to skill tricks without adding an entirely separate subsystem.

FYI: Skills (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=273781), Combat (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=257094), Magic basics (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14178993). (Spell rewrites are getting redone; mine were kind of haphazard)

Conor77
2013-03-18, 09:18 PM
That is true. I was going to get to divine spells afterwards, but if someone else did them, that would be great!

cameronpants
2013-03-19, 10:47 AM
Two things. First, could you give me examples of edited spells you have completed Conor77?

Secondly is a question about spellcasting and armour in G&G: does 3.5's Arcane Spell Failure affect all spells? Because I think it should. As long as a spell has a somatic component, I figure armour gets in the way. If all the divine spells have simple enough gestures which armour does not interfere with, how is that even a component of spellcasting? I mean, if it's just a gesture, why not a flick of the head or thrust of the chin when ones arms are bound?

I was just curious about it. Perhaps armour doesn't even have a % chance of failure, but instead a penalty to caster level checks- if this brings your caster level to below the minimum, then the spell is unable to be cast. Padded has a 0, Chain Shirt a -3, and Full Plate a -8? Even make it the same as Armour Check Penalty and be done with it. ASF was clunky and awkward to begin with anyhow.

I just see a priest wade into combat, heavy mace gripped in white-knuckled fist, unleashing a brutal battle prayer for vengeance. White fire bursts from his holy symbol emblazoned on his shield, framing his face in a masque of twisted, zeal-filled fury, and he slams his now fire-wreathed wrecking ball of holy iron into the face of a Vrock. (Align Strike and a power attack.)

No swirling arm motions, no strange ingredients. Just a Divine Focus and the right question, prayer, or appeal.*Some divine spells could totally have somatic components, but clerics/divine casters would not be immune to the effects of wearing heavy, movement-restricting armour.

Thoughts?

Conor77
2013-03-19, 12:32 PM
The spell thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=272399)

And yeah, I kinda like that idea. So far, every spell I've been working on literally just has vocal and somatic components, with the exception of a few costly material components, but we could change that, and have Armor Check Penalty simply apply to caster level, when casting somatic spells.

Legendxp
2013-04-05, 12:21 PM
So for monsters, do you just need their stats and abilities updated to the new layout. Cause if you want I can try doing that. Also, you should probably put a link to Conor77's spell thread somewhere in the magic section.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-04-05, 12:23 PM
So for monsters, do you just need their stats and abilities updated to the new layout. Cause if you want I can try doing that. Also, you should probably put a link to Conor77's spell thread somewhere in the magic section.
The big thing, I think, would be to update their AC to take the new scaling there into account, and to alter their abilities to take into account the condition rules. And new spells.

Legendxp
2013-04-09, 02:50 PM
What sourcebooks do you want me to look through for monsters, (Just the monster manuals?) and is there a thread already started for this? (I couldn't find one). Finally, does anybody know what the text limit per post is?

Grod_The_Giant
2013-04-09, 05:38 PM
What sourcebooks do you want me to look through for monsters, (Just the monster manuals?) and is there a thread already started for this? (I couldn't find one). Finally, does anybody know what the text limit per post is?
1. Just the MM1 should be plenty
2. No
3. I think it's 50,000 characters.

Legendxp
2013-04-10, 05:12 PM
Alright, I'm going to attempt it then. I'll fill you in as I go along, but I don't want to actually post a thread until I have a significant portion done.

Realms of Chaos
2013-04-11, 10:53 AM
Hmmm... looking at the new class table, divine magic is kind of dominating.

The sorcerer has a divine version in the favored soul, the wizard has a divine version in the archivist, and then we have two more full divine casters in the cleric and druid. That's the possibility of 4 full divine casters out of 11 classes.

What I find odd is that the priestly cleric and archivist seem to overlap mechanically a good deal. If the cleric is no longer trying to be a frontline fighter, the only real difference between them would seem to be that one studies books while the other uses prayer (which, actually, sounds a good deal like what the favored soul is).

One thing I might consider is giving the sorcerer/favored soul and wizard/archivist similar mechanics but entirely divorced fluff. I would personally see the archivist as a divine caster who gets power not from "tomes" but from "scripture" (instead of a pursuer of forbidden lore) while the favored soul is the being who gets power from raw prayer. Between those two possibilities, I don't exactly see how a separate cleric class would fit in.

Legendxp
2013-04-11, 03:03 PM
Alright, I'm currently working on the Aboleth and I have some questions.

Questions:

Q1: Can you explain the Combat Maneuver Bonus to me again or link me to the combat section? I can’t remember all the details for the new rules.

Q2: What skill would disguise go under? Deception?
What skill would Knowledge (Dungeoneering) go under? Lore?
What skill would Spellcraft go under? Occult?

Q3: Do regular Aboleths gain Spell/Psionic points or not? (Since their abilities are at will)

Q4: What would their basic and advanced magic ability scores be? (I would guess Wis and Cha respectively) Should I just be using my best guess for most of the creatures in the MM1, especially the spellcasting ones?

Q5: How am I supposed to find the BAB and saves on an Aboleth Mage? (It gets levels from the wizard class, but we haven’t statted out classes yet…)

Q6: How's it looking so far? The biggest issue to come up as of now is figuring out the skills and saves.

Also, when comparing, you would have to look at the entry in MM1. (and since I cannot link to it, you'll have to google the pdf)

Background Info
CHAPTER 1
MONSTERS A TO Z
ABOLETH
http://cdn.obsidianportal.com/assets/7249/aboleth4.jpg

(The cool, refreshing water suddenly erupts in a storm of reaching, grasping tentacles. The tentacles connect to a primeval fish, 20 feet in length from its bulbous head to its crescent-shaped tail. Three slit-shaped eyes, protected by bony ridges, are set one atop the other in the front of its head, which remains just beneath the surface as it attacks.)

The Aboleth is a revolting fishlike amphibian found primarily in subterranean lakes and rivers. It despises all nonaquatic creatures and attempts to destroy them on sight. An Aboleth has a pink belly. Four pulsating blue-black orifices line the bottom of its body and secrete gray slime that smells like rancid grease. It uses its tail for propulsion in the water and drags itself along with its tentacles on land. An Aboleth weighs about 6,500 pounds. Aboleths are cruel and highly intelligent, making them dangerous predators. They know many ancient and terrible secrets, for they inherit their parents’ knowledge at birth and assimilate the memories of all they consume. Aboleths are smart enough to refrain from immediately attacking land dwellers that draw near. Instead they hang back, hoping their prey will enter the water, which they often make appear cool, clear, and refreshing with their powers of illusion. Aboleths also use their psionic abilities to enslave individuals for use against their own companions. Aboleths have both male and female reproductive organs. They breed in solitude, laying 1d3 eggs every five years. These eggs grow for another five years before hatching into full-grown Aboleths. Although the young are physically mature, they remain with their parent for some ten years, obeying the older creature utterly. Aboleths speak their own language, as well as Undercommon and Aquan.

COMBAT
An Aboleth attacks by flailing with its long, slimy tentacles, though it prefers to fight from a distance using its illusion powers.

Enslave (Su): Three times per day, an Aboleth can attempt to enslave any one living creature within 30 feet. The target must succeed on a Will save or be affected as though by a dominate person spell. (DC17, Caster level 16th, Charisma based.) An enslaved creature obeys the Aboleth’s telepathic commands until freed by remove curse, and can attempt a new Will save every 24 hours to break free. The control is also broken if the Aboleth dies or is ever more than 1 mile from its slave.

Psionics (Sp): At will—hypnotic pattern (DC 15), illusory wall (DC 17), mirage arcana (DC 18), persistent image (DC 18), programmed image (DC 19), project image (DC 20), veil (DC 19). Effective caster level 16th. The save DCs are Charisma-based.

Slime (Ex): A blow from an Aboleth’s tentacle can cause a terrible affliction. A creature hit by a tentacle must succeed on a DC 19 Fortitude save or begin to transform over the next 1d4+1 minutes, the skin gradually becoming a clear, slimy membrane. An afflicted creature must remain moistened with cool, fresh water or take 1d12 points of damage every 10 minutes. The slime reduces the creature’s natural armor bonus by 1 (but never to less than 0). The save DC is Constitution-based. A remove disease spell cast before the transformation is complete will restore an afflicted creature to normal. Afterward, however, only a heal or mass heal spell can reverse the affliction.

Mucus Cloud (Ex): An Aboleth underwater surrounds itself with a viscous cloud of mucus roughly 1 foot thick. Any creature coming into contact with and inhaling this substance must succeed on a DC 19 Fortitude save or lose the ability to breathe air for the next 3 hours. An affected creature suffocates in 2d6 minutes if removed from the water. Renewed contact with the mucus cloud and failing another Fortitude save continues the effect for another 3 hours. The save DC is Constitution-based.

Athletics Proficiency (Swimming): An Aboleth has a +8 racial bonus on any Athletics check to perform some special action or avoid a hazard while swimming. It can always choose to take
10 on an Athletics check to swim, even if distracted or endangered. It can use the run action while swimming, provided it swims in a straight line.

ABOLETH MAGE
Among the watery tombs and dungeons they inhabit, the lords of the Aboleths focus their efforts to achieve dominion through their study of wizardry. Their great power marks them as among the lords of all subterranean creatures. Still, these creatures, devoted to their arcane scholarship, spend most of their long lives alone.


Creature Statistics
Aboleth
Type: Huge Aberration
Hit-Dice: 8d8+40 (Average 76hp)
Total Level: 8 (Aberration 8)
Initiative: +1 (+1 Dex)
Speed: 10ft (Swim 60ft)
Armor Class: 16 (10 −2 Size +1 Dex +7 Natural)
Base Attack: +6 (Poor)
*CMB: +16 (+8 Size +8 Str)
Attack (Melee): +14 (Tentacle, 1d6+8) plus slime
Attack (Ranged): +7 (Use this for Ray spells, etc…)
Full Attack: +14/+14/+14/+14 (Tentacles x4) slime
Space/Reach: 15ft / 10ft
Special Attacks: Enslave, Psionics, slime
Special Qualities: Aquatic subtype, Darkvision 60ft, mucus cloud
Saves: Fort 11 (6 Base +5 Con)
Ref 7 (6 Base +1 Dex)
Will 16 (11 Base +3 Wis +2 Feat)
Abilities: Str 8, Dex 1, Con 5, Int 2, Wis 3, Cha 3
Skills: Concentration +16, Lore or Occult +13, Perception +16, Athletics +8
Environment: Underground
Organization: Solitary (1), Brood (2−4), or Slaver Brood (1d3+1) and (1d6+6 slaves)
Challenge Rating: 7
Treasure: Default x2
Alignment: Lawful Evil
Advancement: 9−16 HD (Huge)
17−24 HD (Gargantuan)
Feats: -Alertness: Gain +2 bonus to Perception checks.
-Combat Casting: (So… What am I supposed to put here?)
-Iron Will: Gain +2 bonus to Will saves.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-04-11, 03:20 PM
Q1: Can you explain the Combat Maneuver Bonus to me again or link me to the combat section? I can’t remember all the details for the new rules.
Combat (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=257094). CMB is lifted pretty much directly from Pathfinder (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Combat-Maneuvers).


Q2: What skill would disguise go under? Deception?
What skill would Knowledge (Dungeoneering) go under? Lore?
What skill would Spellcraft go under? Occult?
1. Deception
2. Survival
3. Aye, Occult (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14826820)


Q3: Do regular Aboleths gain Spell/Psionic points or not? (Since their abilities are at will)
Nah. At will is at will.


Q4: What would their basic and advanced magic ability scores be? (I would guess Wis and Cha respectively) Should I just be using my best guess for most of the creatures in the MM1, especially the spellcasting ones?
Yup.


Q5: How am I supposed to find the BAB and saves on an Aboleth Mage? (It gets levels from the wizard class, but we haven’t statted out classes yet…)
Progressions (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14538922&postcount=2). Take your best guess on what's good/average/poor. (BAB translates directly; not sure what the saves will be).


Q6: How's it looking so far? The biggest issue to come up as of now is figuring out the skills and saves.
I'm a bit nervous about the save-or-sad transformation abilities. Try to make those follow the three-step condition rules a bit more?

EDIT: Ah, yes, we need feats. Conner's working on spells, LegendXP on monsters, but wants to handle feats?

Legendxp
2013-04-12, 10:25 AM
Alright, I redid some of the abilities to follow the 3 step rules better, Let me know what you think.

COMBAT
An Aboleth Mage attacks by first using spells such as displacement, greater invisibility, and wall of force, to protect itself first. After which, it uses its innate abilities to subdue its foes.

Enslave (Su): Three times per day, an Aboleth can attempt to enslave any one living creature within 30 feet. The target must succeed on a Will save or be affected as though by a dominate person spell. (DC17, Caster level 16th, Charisma based.) A successfully dominated creature (see dominated in the mind control track) obeys the Aboleth’s telepathic commands until freed by remove curse, and can attempt a new Will save every 24 hours to break free. Otherwise, a trusting or charmed creature perceives an Aboleth’s commands in the most favorable way. The control is broken if the Aboleth dies or is ever more than 1 mile from the creature under its command.

Psionics (Sp): At will—hypnotic pattern (DC 15), illusory wall (DC 17), mirage arcana (DC 18), persistent image (DC 18), programmed image (DC 19), project image (DC 20), veil (DC 19). Effective caster level 16th. The save DCs are Charisma-based.

Slime (Ex): A blow from an Aboleth’s tentacle can cause a terrible affliction. A creature hit by a tentacle must succeed on a DC 19 Fortitude save. Results vary depending on the roll. Failure by anything less than five reduces the creature's AC by 1 (but never to less than 0) and a slimy coating appears on the surface of its skin. You can cure this first state with any cure spell. Failure by 5 or more reduces the creature's AC by 2 (but never to less than 0). You can cure this second state with any remove disease spell. A creature in its second state must succeed on a second fortitude save 1d4 minutes later or its skin gradually becomes a clear, slimy membrane. In this third state an afflicted creature must remain moistened with cool, fresh water or take 1d12 points of damage every 10 minutes. Additionally, it can only be cured by a Heal or Mass Heal spell. Failure by 10 or more automatically turns the afflicted creature into its third state within 1d4 minutes (No secondary save) The save DC is Constitution-based.

Mucus Cloud (Ex): An Aboleth underwater surrounds itself with a viscous cloud of mucus roughly 1 foot thick. Any creature coming into contact with and inhaling this substance must succeed on a DC 19 Fortitude save. Results vary depending on the roll. Failure by anything less than 5 results in the creature losing the ability to breathe air for the next hour. An affected creature suffocates in 10d6 minutes if not in partial body contact with water. (This would mean a creature's entire limb or appendage, and not something as small as a finger) Failure by 5 or more increases the effect, can't breathe for the next 2 hours and suffocates in 5d6 minutes. Failure by 10 or more further increases the effect to; losing the ability to breathe air for the next 3 hours and suffocating in 2d6 minutes. Renewed contact with the mucus cloud and failing another Fortitude save continues the current effect for another length of time determined by the resulting roll. The save DC is Constitution-based.

Athletics Proficiency (Swimming): An Aboleth has a +8 racial bonus on any Athletics check to perform some special action or avoid a hazard while swimming. It can always choose to take
10 on an Athletics check to swim, even if distracted or endangered. It can use the run action while swimming, provided it swims in a straight line.


@Grod the Giant - Neat picture. Funnily enough, I was on the moment you updated it, thought you were someone else.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-04-12, 10:34 AM
Alright, I redid some of the abilities to follow the 3 step rules better, Let me know what you think.
Yeah, that looks better.


@Grod the Giant - Neat picture. Funnily enough, I was on the moment you updated it, thought you were someone else.
Thanks. I keep getting confused myself. :smalltongue:

Legendxp
2013-04-12, 06:56 PM
Do Deflection Bonuses still exist?

If a creature has a score of "-", Should I write it off as "0" in the new rules?

Are there any new things that are going to be changed in the undead or incorporeal subtypes that I should be aware of?

Grod_The_Giant
2013-04-12, 07:01 PM
Do Deflection Bonuses still exist?

If a creature has a score of "-", Should I write it off as "0" in the new rules?

Are there any new things that are going to be changed in the undead or incorporeal subtypes that I should be aware of?
No, no, and not as far as I can think of.

Legendxp
2013-04-13, 07:16 PM
Do monsters still have natural armor, or is this just listed as an armor bonus?

Does the "Use Rope" skill still exist?

I've gotten to animated objects by the way... Yes I'm still in the A's ='(

On the plus side, once I'm finished with the A's I'll make a thread.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-04-13, 09:04 PM
Do monsters still have natural armor, or is this just listed as an armor bonus?

Does the "Use Rope" skill still exist?

I've gotten to animated objects by the way... Yes I'm still in the A's ='(

On the plus side, once I'm finished with the A's I'll make a thread.
Armor Bonus, and no.

Legendxp
2013-04-16, 06:40 PM
Good progression: Starts at +4, grows by 1 per level, ends at +23. Is equivalent to current good bab progression +3.

So when you say it ends at +23 does that mean it also stops at epic levels? For example a level 22 would not get a +25 BAB it would get a +23 BAB?

On a side note, I know some of these questions seem kind of "common sense", but I don't want to make a small error and have to redo like twenty creatures later. That would suck...:smallfrown:

EDIT: Also, maximium number of attacks granted by your BAB would be 4 right? (+21/ +16/ +11/ +6), not (+21/ +16/ +11/ +6/ +1)

Grod_The_Giant
2013-04-16, 07:08 PM
So when you say it ends at +23 does that mean it also stops at epic levels? For example a level 22 would not get a +25 BAB it would get a +23 BAB?
Oh, geez. I don't think we ever talked about epic levels. I literally have no idea what should happen when we hit epic levels-- I've never looked at the 3.5 rules...


On a side note, I know some of these questions seem kind of "common sense", but I don't want to make a small error and have to redo like twenty creatures later. That would suck...:smallfrown:
No no, don't worry, these are good questions you're asking.


EDIT: Also, maximium number of attacks granted by your BAB would be 4 right? (+21/ +16/ +11/ +6), not (+21/ +16/ +11/ +6/ +1)
No, it would be 5 attacks with a good BAB. No need to cut off arbitrarily.

tarkisflux
2013-04-16, 10:00 PM
Oh, geez. I don't think we ever talked about epic levels. I literally have no idea what should happen when we hit epic levels-- I've never looked at the 3.5 rules...

If I may drop in for a moment...

If you decide to include epic rules (and you would be forgiven for punting on that decision for now), you only really need to decide whether to continue the progressions (and grow the differences between them) or to opt for a fixed progression for everyone like +1 per level or per 2 levels or wahtever (and fix the differences between them at their level 20 values).

At level 20, there is already an 11 point difference between guys on the good track and guys on the poor tracks, and a 5 point difference between good and moderate tracks. The guys on the poor track don't succeed on things that are challenging DCs for guys on the good track, but guys on the moderate track sometimes can. Similarly, guys on the poor track can sometimes succeed against guys on the good track on opposed checks and moderate guys are a bit better.

If you like that behavior, fixed progression for everything for everyone is what you want. If you want the chances to go down, continue with the current progressions. If you don't want to think about it for now, punt and sort it later (if ever). I'd actually recommend punting, as epic rules are things that a rather small portion of people wind up using in my experience, and that makes worrying about it a pretty bad cost : benefit ratio for this stage of the revision.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-04-16, 10:17 PM
Yeah, I'ma have to go with a resounding answer of "punt." Sorry. Monsters having 20+ HD is probably something that should be changed anyway, to prevent runaway math.

Legendxp
2013-05-06, 03:52 PM
I've finished Animated Objects but that is all. I've been very busy with finals as of late, but should be able to spend more time on monsters after May 15th.

Draz74
2013-05-07, 12:18 PM
Yeah, I'ma have to go with a resounding answer of "punt." Sorry. Monsters having 20+ HD is probably something that should be changed anyway, to prevent runaway math.

E20, huh? Now there's a daring, radical idea. :smallwink:

Eldan
2013-05-07, 01:49 PM
You know, I was thinking. A few more numerical issues could probably be resolved if we changed the way buffs and some equipment work.

Something like this. We make a class defence bonus that follows the progressions. Then, a shield would work like this. "A shield upgrades a class' defence bonus to the next higher category". Inbuilt growth of effectiveness, while numbers are mostly kept in check. Or Weapon Focus. "Weapon Focus increases the attack bonus to the next higher category for that weapon".

We would have to include a forth category, for those of the high category to be upgraded to, but the general idea seems good to me.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-05-07, 01:58 PM
You know, I was thinking. A few more numerical issues could probably be resolved if we changed the way buffs and some equipment work.

Something like this. We make a class defence bonus that follows the progressions. Then, a shield would work like this. "A shield upgrades a class' defence bonus to the next higher category". Inbuilt growth of effectiveness, while numbers are mostly kept in check. Or Weapon Focus. "Weapon Focus increases the attack bonus to the next higher category for that weapon".

We would have to include a forth category, for those of the high category to be upgraded to, but the general idea seems good to me.
Mmm... that's not bad, I like that. As an added bonus, it matches the way we do skills (specialties advance you to the next highest category)

Legendxp
2013-05-13, 11:39 AM
You know, I was thinking. A few more numerical issues could probably be resolved if we changed the way buffs and some equipment work.

Something like this. We make a class defence bonus that follows the progressions. Then, a shield would work like this. "A shield upgrades a class' defence bonus to the next higher category". Inbuilt growth of effectiveness, while numbers are mostly kept in check. Or Weapon Focus. "Weapon Focus increases the attack bonus to the next higher category for that weapon".

So how would this apply to monsters? Would their class defense bonus be the same progression as their base attack bonus progression? This does seem like a good idea, but will it make monsters too difficult to hit? Maybe it should be one step lower? Possibly make a tier that is lower than poor progression?