Rewriting Reality: A d20 Revision Project [From: The Fighter Problem & How to Fix It]

[Ziegander]

.


http://i.imgur.com/3ErZx.jpg
Image credit: Jason Chan, ©Wizards of the Coast
d20 Reality. Where fantasy is what you make it.

In the conclusions of my essay The Fighter Problem & How to Fix It (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=276366), I discussed two possible solutions. I have begun to explore the ramifications of the second solution, but I have not yet done more than gloss over the first one. This is because the first solution, fixing d20 in all it's broken and dilapidated splendor, is an arduous task. But of course, here we are. Voyage with me then on this most impossible quest, a quest that has been undertaken by many, but fulfilled by a precious, precious few.

This will not be a series of changes that I make to the game to create a new game that I prefer over d20, but an effort to streamline the system and to correct or at least smooth over the errors in it made by the original designers. There is greatness in the system, but there is also heavy burdens of ill-conceived and self-destructive design. First the game must be broken down into simpler parts, then analyzed. Heavy math and RNG (Random Number Generator) discussion will be included and necessary to purify the game of any shoddy math chaff still in the engine. After broken and problem parts are identified, then I will propose (and listen to suggestions for) replacements and/or solutions and work from there.

Back to Basics
We'll start with an evaluation of the most basic functions and outputs of the d20SRD to determine if any problems with the game lie at its very core. Follow me to www.d20srd.org/ (http://www.d20srd.org/) and click the Basics, Races, & Description link on the top left. For this first post we will concern ourselves with only the links and information presented in the Basics columns. Let's go ahead and click on the Core Mechanic link.


The Core Mechanic

Whenever you attempt an action that has some chance of failure, you roll a twenty-sided die (d20). To determine if your character succeeds at a task you do this:


Roll a d20

Add any relevant modifiers.

Compare the result to a target number.

If the result equals or exceeds the target number, your character succeeds. If the result is lower than the target number, you fail.

I find that there is nothing wrong with this. The game is intended to be a d20 game after all. It's simple to understand and easy to execute. That's kind of exactly what we're after. There's no wonky math at this stage; however, the original designers built unfeasible rules on top of this foundation. We'll need to avoid modifiers and target numbers in which challenges are impossible for some members of the party yet simultaneously automatic success for other members. In other words, we need to keep the RNG sane. The margins for error and success should be reigned in. Target numbers need to follow strict formula without making things up on the spot.


Dice

Dice rolls are described with expressions such as “3d4+3,” which means “roll three four-sided dice and add 3” (resulting in a number between 6 and 15). The first number tells you how many dice to roll (adding the results together). The number immediately after the “d” tells you the type of die to use. Any number after that indicates a quantity that is added or subtracted from the result.
d%

Percentile dice work a little differently. You generate a number between 1 and 100 by rolling two different ten-sided dice. One (designated before you roll) is the tens digit. The other is the ones digit. Two 0s represent 100.

Here's the first instance of d20 getting somewhat complicated. d20 uses d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20, and d% to play. Now, we could keep all of that intact if we want, OR we could attempt to reduce the amount and types of dice being rolled around. I'm not saying either way is a good idea, but in my mind, if we wanted to reduce the dice I think the best way would be to use only d20s, d6s, d8s, and d10s. The d20 is used for the resolution mechanics and then having a range between d6, d8, and d10 gives some granularity between light, medium, and heavy attacks (and other such things). Not to mention, keeping the d10 gives us an easy replacement for d% dice.

Another thing to consider is that if we reduced the dice used, it makes the game a little easier to play (players don't need to buy as many strange dice to play), while doing very little recognizable change to the way the game looks and feels. Few players would notice if all classes got either d6, d8, or d10 HD and if all attacks used some variation of d6s, d8s, and d10s for damage.


Modifiers

A modifier is any bonus or penalty applying to a die roll. A positive modifier is a bonus, and a negative modifier is a penalty.

Stacking
In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). If the modifiers to a particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus and worst penalty applies. Dodge bonuses and circumstance bonuses however, do stack with one another unless otherwise specified.

The basic definition of Modifier is a good one. It's clear and can be used throughout the game for modifying d20 action resolution. That's exactly the kind of rules definition we need.

The stacking rules, however, begin to get complicated. Very complicated. There are 18 different modifier types, and they all stack with each other, except when they are the same type, except when they are Dodge and/or Circumstance bonuses. I propose that we reduce the modifier types drastically. We could easily cut the types of modifiers down to as few as four or many as 9.

In the past myself and other collaborators, including Seerow, have concluded that Circumstance, Competence, Enhancement, Inherent, and Item are all the types of modifiers needed with Circumstance and Inherent having special rules and the other three always applying the "stacks with others, does not stack with self, highest bonus/penalty overlaps" rules.

What I know is that something needs to be done with modifiers. We have to reduce the amount of modifier types, and we have to simplify the stacking rules. Sound good? Let me know what you guys think about the issue, and especially if you have other suggestions/solutions.


Ability Scores

Ability Modifiers
Each ability, after changes made because of race, has a modifier ranging from -5 to +5. Table: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells shows the modifier for each score. It also shows bonus spells, which you’ll need to know about if your character is a spellcaster.

The modifier is the number you apply to the die roll when your character tries to do something related to that ability. You also use the modifier with some numbers that aren’t die rolls. A positive modifier is called a bonus, and a negative modifier is called a penalty.

This is all well and good, except right from the get go we're running into the "Spellcasters are special" syndrome that is systematic throughout d20. I'd like any revision to be able to go without the whole, "it also shows bonus spells, which you'll need to know about if your character is a spellcaster," line, but that depends on what we do with those classes. We'll discuss that when we get there, so please keep any ideas about that to yourselves until that time.

We could simplify ability modifiers by getting rid of the sometimes wonky formula that currently exists to determine the modifier, and simply using the score and modifier as the same thing, but that brings us to a slightly odd feeling game where Ability 0 is average, Ability -1 is below average, and Ability +1 is above average. Is ability damage/drain something we want to have in the game? If so, using the base of 10 makes more sense. But, to me anyway, there's something odd about having the baseline RNG established by ability score modifiers have a hard floor of -5 but no maximum bonus. I can't quite explain why, but it makes me uncomfortable...

One thing that has always irked me is that there is a strange disconnect in the superhuman nature of physical ability scores and mental ones. We know that anything higher than 18 in Strength, for example, is supposedly considered superhuman. But by what degree? Continuing with the paradigm of tiers of gameplay I explored in my previous essay, should this mean that all characters who define themselves based on physical strength have an 18 in Strength before 5th level and rise, perhaps exponentially, from there? Is a score higher than 18 in Intelligence supposed to be considered superhuman? What about when we use the age rules do be a 1st level character with 21 Intelligence? Also, should superhuman ability scores be small, incremental boosts above normal human capabilities or should they involve large, flashy displays of power? I'm of the opinion that holding the universe together with raw physical might should be a thing that a 20th level warrior could do if he focused on Strength above everything else. But is Strength 34 really enough to do something like that? Should it be?


Abilities and Spellcasters
The ability that governs bonus spells depends on what type of spellcaster your character is: Intelligence for wizards; Wisdom for clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers; or Charisma for sorcerers and bards. In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level.

And this is where "Spellcasters are special" first rears it's ugly head. I firmly believe this little section needs to go. It serves no real purpose other than to say, "mental scores don't matter unless you're a spellcaster, in which case they are everything." This sort of information is provided in the class descriptions anyway. Well, that's all for now. I'll go into more specific detail about each ability score in a future thread, but let's discuss just the basics for now.

[Just to Browse]

On Core
I agree there's really nothing wrong here. One thing I was thinking is this is a great place to simplify critical success and failure, so that now every roll is "especially successful" on a 20 and "especially failtastic" on a 1.

On Dice
Percentile dice really don't do much, so I don't see a need in keeping them around, and d4s are basically just used as caltrops, weak claws, and wizard HP at my table, so I don't see much of a need for them either.

Of course, what's the point of removing the dice anyways? You could instead just use d4's and d100's sparingly--after all they could be useful somewhere.

On Modifiers and Stacking
I was thinking that we could pare down modifiers even more, to something like Core bonuses (like BAB or skill ranks), Attribute bonuses (Str, Dex, etc.), and any 1 Miscellaneous Bonus (magic, profane, morale) and make that the be-all and end-all of bonus stacking. This could really take down the Christmas Tree effect, which I think we all want, and would also reign in bonus stacking super hard. The worst thing I can see it doing is hurting buffs, because if you specialize in something you're going to have one big bonus in each of the three categories, and a buff spell will have to increase one of those contributors (which might be tough to analyze) or be larger than the miscellaneous bonus.

On Ability Scores
There's actually a very small difference between an average (+0) and above-average (+1) person by the standards of D&D. It's something you might not even notice in a given session if you roll abnormally well or poorly. I think that paradigm should change somehow--either by making the standards for "bad" and "good" larger (+2 to -2 or even larger) or by making a given point in an ability score a bigger deal.

I really don't like the idea of changing D&D's attribute system, because it feel so iconic to the system. Cutting it out, while somewhat sensible, really removes the "This is a D&D game" feeling for me.

On Abilities and Spellcasters
While spellcasters being special is a bad thing, Abilities being special might not necessarily be. If almost every class using some sort of resource mechanic, it would be beneficial to include a section telling players that the resource will have a central attribute and they should look into maximizing whatever that attribute is.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Core:
I'm also of the opinion this is fine, and I second making 20's and 1's auto-confirm.

Dice:
I hate percentile dice. Never understood what people saw in it, but then again I'm not a math person. I'd like to see d20's, d12's, d8's and d4's become the primary dice. There's nice variety, and it makes things novel by using less common (and in the d12's case less-loved) dice.

Stacks:
I think, paring down the number of modifier types, it should end up as: Innate (attributes), Enhancement (magic!), Armor (natural or otherwise, including shields), Competence (Skills), Defense (deflection and dodge), Morale, Size and Circumstance.

Attributes:
I think the attributes should stay as they are, name-wise. I think we can mitigate the "God-Stats" by moving around some aspects (maybe Charisma governs will saves?), but it should still be the traditional 6.

There was a 3.5 overhaul on these boards (The Classy D20 System) that merged the concept of Scores and Modifiers, and I think it works for the most part unless you use variant rules like Wounds and Vitality, which use the scores.

Spellcasters:
They need all sorts of overhauling. Dropping the "spellcasters" bits in the beginning helps. Personally I jump between Spell Slots, Spell Points, Magic = Skills and Infinite-But-With-Cooldowns magic too often to give an opinion on D&D magic that won't be dated by...tomorrow. :smallsmile:

[Ziegander]

On Core
I agree there's really nothing wrong here. One thing I was thinking is this is a great place to simplify critical success and failure, so that now every roll is "especially successful" on a 20 and "especially failtastic" on a 1.

I also like the idea that even skills can have "critical successes." My suggested change in the rules here would be that, by default, there are no confirmation rolls and then, as you said, any d20 roll is "especially successful" on a 20 and "especially disastrous" on a 1.


On Dice
Percentile dice really don't do much, so I don't see a need in keeping them around, and d4s are basically just used as caltrops, weak claws, and wizard HP at my table, so I don't see much of a need for them either.

Of course, what's the point of removing the dice anyways? You could instead just use d4's and d100's sparingly--after all they could be useful somewhere.

Percentile dice can be handy for greater degrees of simulation, if we wanted to use them for that instead of concealment miss chances (which would be better, I would argue), but the point is one of greater accessibility, though only marginally so, I admit. It's harder to get hold of d4s and d12s than it is d6s and d10s (I don't know if d8s are especially difficult as well, or not).

But it really doesn't make much difference one way or the other, I know. Just thought I'd bring it up.


On Modifiers and Stacking
I was thinking that we could pare down modifiers even more, to something like Core bonuses (like BAB or skill ranks), Attribute bonuses (Str, Dex, etc.), and any 1 Miscellaneous Bonus (magic, profane, morale) and make that the be-all and end-all of bonus stacking. This could really take down the Christmas Tree effect, which I think we all want, and would also reign in bonus stacking super hard. The worst thing I can see it doing is hurting buffs, because if you specialize in something you're going to have one big bonus in each of the three categories, and a buff spell will have to increase one of those contributors (which might be tough to analyze) or be larger than the miscellaneous bonus.

Seerow would point out that a setup like that causes situations in which two heroes, one who is quite skilled at climbing, the other who is clumsy and has never climbed a day, both receive a magical boost to their climbing ability and suddenly are climbing equals. I would agree with him that something like Competence and Enhancement need to be separate and stacking modifiers to prevent such situations.


On Ability Scores
There's actually a very small difference between an average (+0) and above-average (+1) person by the standards of D&D. It's something you might not even notice in a given session if you roll abnormally well or poorly. I think that paradigm should change somehow--either by making the standards for "bad" and "good" larger (+2 to -2 or even larger) or by making a given point in an ability score a bigger deal.

I agree with you, but then what do we do? Action points per point of superhuman modifier which can be spent to ramp up d20 rolls associated with the ability score?


I really don't like the idea of changing D&D's attribute system, because it feel so iconic to the system. Cutting it out, while somewhat sensible, really removes the "This is a D&D game" feeling for me.

I don't remember suggesting anything like cutting out the attribute system. Just taking a new look at it. Modifying it maybe, helping it to better model higher tiers of gameplay, but not getting rid of it entirely. Of course, in fixing d20 some elements of "This is a D&D game" might have to go the way of the dodo, and that's okay with me as long as the game we come up with is superior.


On Abilities and Spellcasters
While spellcasters being special is a bad thing, Abilities being special might not necessarily be. If almost every class using some sort of resource mechanic, it would be beneficial to include a section telling players that the resource will have a central attribute and they should look into maximizing whatever that attribute is.

I agree, but those sort of rules should be exceptions noted in the Class entries and not in the broad, core Abilities Scores section.

[Seerow]

One thing that has always irked me is that there is a strange disconnect in the superhuman nature of physical ability scores and mental ones. We know that anything higher than 18 in Strength, for example, is supposedly considered superhuman. But by what degree? Continuing with the paradigm of tiers of gameplay I explored in my previous essay, should this mean that all characters who define themselves based on physical strength have an 18 in Strength before 5th level and rise, perhaps exponentially, from there? Is a score higher than 18 in Intelligence supposed to be considered superhuman? What about when we use the age rules do be a 1st level character with 21 Intelligence? Also, should superhuman ability scores be small, incremental boosts above normal human capabilities or should they involve large, flashy displays of power? I'm of the opinion that holding the universe together with raw physical might should be a thing that a 20th level warrior should be able to do. But is Strength 34 really enough to do something like that? Should it be?

Well "holding the universe together through raw physical might" is something that's pretty hard to define.

That aside, I do generally agree with the principle of past 18, you're beyond the natural, and superhumanly so. This does mean getting rid of age modifiers to mental stats (which honestly falls more under the spellcasters getting more nice things in the form of free bonuses anyway. And given some of the things those stats actually play into never made sense anyway. ie the traditional old guy sees and hears better than he did while he was younger). I'd also personally lean towards restricting players to 16s at character generation, and maybe even finding a different way to handle racial ability mods (if not eliminating them outright).

On the other end of things, I think that ability scores should scale more automatically with level, rather than being highly dependent on magic items. A 20th level character focused on being the strongest person on this side of the universe should have achieved that on his own, not through casting wish spells, wearing a couple different +str items, etc. I personally favor an ever-increasing point buy that characters can assign to stats as they level, but there's any number of ways that you can make attributes work. The important thing is to define the scale of what's possible, what's expected, and figure out what those scores actually mean in the game world.



As an aside, it is important to consider how stats meaning so much more impacts the game as a whole. After all, it's cool to say your Fighter can grab a mountain and throw it like a javelin at that dragon that annoyed him, but when the level of strength that makes that available translates into +10 to hit and damage on his sword swing, there's an immediate disconnect there. It's important to think about this and decide how much weight you want to give to that disconnect. Do you make strength have an exponential effect on damage to reflect its exponential growth? (something like every 2 points of strength past 18 doubles your weapon damage. So at 20 you have 2[w] 22 4[w], 24 8[w], 26 16[w], 28 32[w], 30 64[w], 32 128[w], 34 256[w]) Something like that gets pretty unmanageable very quickly, but when you have a guy strong enough to toss mountains around, punch the ground to cause earthquakes, and hold the fabric of reality itself together, that's kind of what people expect. Or do you tell the player to deal with the disconnect, and keep the effect of ability scores mostly the same, except for specific exceptional tasks? Do you try to find a middle ground? This is a big enough thing to be a topic all on its own.

[Ziegander]

Well "holding the universe together through raw physical might" is something that's pretty hard to define.

Well, yeah, sure, and maybe such a feat is a bit much for even a 20th level character. But treating a mountain as a heavy load? At least that should be something a player that focuses on Strength should expect to be capable of at 20th level.


On the other end of things, I think that ability scores should scale more automatically with level, rather than being highly dependent on magic items. A 20th level character focused on being the strongest person on this side of the universe should have achieved that on his own, not through casting wish spells, wearing a couple different +str items, etc.

I thoroughly agree.


I personally favor an ever-increasing point buy that characters can assign to stats as they level, but there's any number of ways that you can make attributes work.

The ever-increasing point buy is a concept I too have entertained in the past, and you're right, it's just one way that more organic scaling ability scores could be made to work.


The important thing is to define the scale of what's possible, what's expected, and figure out what those scores actually mean in the game world.

Exactly. After all, there are games where Strength 10 means Hulk-level physical power. So, perhaps before determining what should be done with ability scores some discussion should be had about what characters should be capable of within various level ranges. We can save that for later, I think.


As an aside, it is important to consider how stats meaning so much more impacts the game as a whole. After all, it's cool to say your Fighter can grab a mountain and throw it like a javelin at that dragon that annoyed him, but when the level of strength that makes that available translates into +10 to hit and damage on his sword swing, there's an immediate disconnect there. It's important to think about this and decide how much weight you want to give to that disconnect. Do you make strength have an exponential effect on damage to reflect its exponential growth? (something like every 2 points of strength past 18 doubles your weapon damage. So at 20 you have 2[w] 22 4[w], 24 8[w], 26 16[w], 28 32[w], 30 64[w], 32 128[w], 34 256[w]) Something like that gets pretty unmanageable very quickly, but when you have a guy strong enough to toss mountains around, punch the ground to cause earthquakes, and hold the fabric of reality itself together, that's kind of what people expect. Or do you tell the player to deal with the disconnect, and keep the effect of ability scores mostly the same, except for specific exceptional tasks? Do you try to find a middle ground? This is a big enough thing to be a topic all on its own.

I would think you'd like to have a middle ground. For example, it isn't much of a stretch to argue that a drastic increase in one's carrying capacity (to reflect one's ability to lift mountains) doesn't necessitate an equally drastic increase to weapon damage. In this specific case, if Strength 30 granted a carrying capacity of 20 tons instead of close to 1 ton, it wouldn't really need to also accompany a x20 damage multiplier. More than the +6 damage bonus between peak human Str 18 and "super superhuman" Str 30? Sure, though maybe not by an obscene, unmanageable amount.

[nonsi]

Dice: If you nix d4 & d12, you'll need to reinvent the size-dependent damage scaling table. Also, how would you differentiate Dagger damage from that of a Short Sword and other somesuch ?


Modifiers: I see the advantage of adopting the suggestion made by JusttoBrowse, but it seems like an over simplification to me. I'm thinking more of categorizing the miscellaneous modifiers to:
1. "Physical"
2. "Magical"
3. "Morale"
4. "Circumstance"
Cross-Category bonuses stack while Inter-Categories bonuses overlap (except for armor & shield bonuses, which also stack). Sacred & Profane bonuses – each effect augments just one of "Physical"/"Magical"/"Morale"



Ability Scores: I don't see 6 ability scores as a sacred cow not to be touched.
- I'd like to see a clear separation between one's agility and their hand-eye coordination.
- Wisdom is just one's experience, so it's not really an attribute. Instead of Wis-Cha, I'd make them Willpower & Personality, making the latter irrelevant for spellcasting, but absolutely relevant for all social interactions.
- Another thing that's missing is one's overall gracefulness and looks. Appearance if you will. This one should affect first impression, but also things previously associated with luck (the higher your “Appearance” is, the less clumsy you are).
- Last comes one’s innate ability to perceive details. This could affect all perception skills, but also initiative, illusion & compulsion resistance and how hard it is to surprise you.
So, this leads to the following result:
- Strength
- Dexterity (modifies Ref saves)
- Agility
- Constitution (modifies Fort saves)
- Intelligence
- Perception
- Willpower (modifies Will saves)
- Personality
- Appearance
I’m not focusing on balance between the abilities ATM, but more on what feels right to me as one’s innate traits.


As for Abilities and Spellcasters:
If you keep the traditional 6 ability scores, then you might wanna consider this:
- INT determines bonus spells known (not spells-per-day)
- CHA modifies spell save DCs
- WIS modifies overcoming SR

Regarding my suggested abilities, the associated modifiers should go with Intelligence / Willpower / Perception (respectively).

[nonsi]

One thing to consider that will go a long way in reducing the balance factors: PrCs.

I suggest sending them to oblivion.

Intertwining between features of different classes (e.g. Bladesinger) can and should be done via feats.
And any base class should be absolutely the best at its signature abilities (i.e. no more Master Specialist for wizards, OotBI for fighters, Frenzied Berzerker for barbarians fighters etc). The class itself should provide those options internally.

[Ashtagon]

On Core
Nothing wrong. The core d20 mechanic works fine.

On Dice
I fail to see how getting rid of d4 and d12 from the system makes martial classes, or fighters specifically, weaker. Sure, it's fewer dice to buy if you're spending money on the game. But the cost of a full set of dice is still less than a single rulebook. The only valid reason (money) is of very marginal benefit.

Having more dice options also even out any jumps in power as you scale up.

On Modifiers and Stacking
I'd say that any bonus that is "always on" and "always stacks even with itself" should just go ahead and be untyped. And where possible, it should be specifically called out in the rules text as "untyped".

Since there are specific situations in which dodge bonuses can be lost, that needs to be kept.

Divine and profane bonuses should be merged. No one has any business having both. Similarly, any document that has an axiomatic or chaotic bonus should DiaF. Call it a "primal" bonus if you like (from WotC's The Primal Force), or a "cosmic" bonus (from GURPS).

I'd rather see accessibility to the various kinds of bonus stacking options, rather than merging bonus sources that are genuinely different. Too much merging can and will kill character concepts.

On Ability Scores

This is closely tied to what you use for chargen. BECMI used a +/-3 modifier range, while 3e goes for +/-5. Otoh, BECMI also had a far tighter limit on what bonus stacking you could have, simply because it had far few items and effects available.

On Abilities and Spellcasters

Spellcasters already get bonus caster level from high ability scores, and bonus to save DCs. They don't need bonus to spells available in addition to that.

As an aside, most high-level spells need to be remade as rituals.

[Carl]

Core

Can't disagree here

Dice

I think others hit my main point here. Options ae good. That said right now i can't think of anything in core besides equipment tables that actually use D100 and couldn't be effortlessly switched to D20 or whatever.

Modifier and Stacking

I think you missed a lot here.

First things first Sacred, Profane, Insight, Luck, Deflection, and Alchemical bonuses are all woefully under utilised in core. You could probably reduce these to 1 or two non-stacking modifiers with little effort.

Competence and Morale are a bit more well used, especially for skill check bonuses on magic items. But their main use besides such items is various forms of buff spell or buff abilities that are clearly intended to stack with things like magic item bonuses, (that skill checks aside are mainly enhancement). Thing is if you need a spell or class ability to stack in that way for some reason, (i.e. because buffing allies is a core class function or whatever), just use a modifier type that allows stacking and move the skill check items over to another non-stacking modifier type. That would let you reduce this down to one type.

Another problem is things like all the armour modifiers. Why is the benefit from armour or a shield being handled as some sort of bonus modifier in the first place. It should be an innate part of the equipment rules. Similar thing with Natural Armour, why is it a specific modifier type instead of a built in part of the creature rules. Dodge and deflection seem relevant in that they provide stacking and non-stacking modifier types, but why does armour need to be separate to anything else?

Circumstance also seems odd. Why isn't that a rule over in the section written on DM'ing as it's basically a way to officialise DM Fiat which whilst valid doesn't need to confuse this section by going here.

Ideally you want 4-6 non-stacking modifier types and 1-2 stacking types. And they should all be valid for all types of modifiable roll, rather than specific. That way when you need a non-stacking modifier but want it to stack with some other non-stackers you can use an appropriate one.

The alternative (that I'm exploring to a degree in my equipment re-vamp), is to have sub modifier types.

There all equipment applies a modifier to relevant rolls. However this equipment modifier is based on the Base of the equipment, (which is staking), and 2 non-stacking modifier types, (Masterwork and Enchantment). This is a little more elegant and a little more flexible, but a touch harder to explain and I'd need some real thought to make it work for spells and extraordinary abilities though.


Attributes

I think your comment about spellcasters being special missed something. Every class is supposed to have one or two scores it focuses on, those scores provide them with the most benefit to their class capabilities. The only difference is in how spellcasters do this, not in that spellcasters have such a thing.

The real problem is that spellcasters see an exponential gain rather than a linear one and that simply gaining levels can make their primary score that much more valuable. This is just down to how bonus spells are granted based on ability score. Reform that and the issue goes away.

I haven't written the class yet but i've got a base class concept kicking around my skull that gets a very limited spell selection and gains them slowly. It can cast each spell a number of times per day equal to 1 + (Wisdom modifier - the spells level). Something like that would make a high score valuable to low level spells, (where casters need it throughout the game), without supercharging their high level spell slots.

[Morty]

Regarding ability scores, I don't think that an ability score above 18 should in itself make you superhuman. I think it should make you "simply" extremely strong. Perhaps unrealistically so, but not extremely. Truly superhuman and heroic feats should be available as special abilities of some sort. Heracles doesn't strangle the Nemean Lion with his bare hands because he has 20 in Strength, he strangles the lion because he has some sort of special ability that reflects his mythic strength.

As for dice rolls, I think D&D could use some sort of mechanics for degrees of success so that it's not a binary matter of success/failure.

[nonsi]

As for dice rolls, I think D&D could use some sort of mechanics for degrees of success so that it's not a binary matter of success/failure.


I suggested that angle for attack rolls & damage scores over here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249375).
Skills can be covered in a Similar, allowing partial success, maybe bringing you closer to your goals in several steps.

[lesser_minion]

As far as ability scores are concerned, one option would be to replace each score with 10 + modifier, so ability scores range from 0 upwards, and the modifier is the same as the score - 10, without dividing. This means that the raw ability score is actually a useful number in its own right, and adds a little more space for the game to handle weaker creatures (possibly).

A more radical option might be to all-but eliminate them, using them only as headings under which to place feats and other special abilities that are offered later.

Either way, I agree with Morty -- characters shouldn't be implicitly superhuman by virtue of numbers alone. If your character has superhuman strength, they shouldn't just have Strength 20, they should also have an intrinsic that says "you are superhumanly strong. Here are some cool things you can do as a result". In fact, I'd support a system where even obtaining an extremely high ability score requires you to first obtain some sort of intrinsic that grants you cool stuff to do with it.

A good encumbrance system should really slide out of the way when you're transporting things rather than fighting in them, and pegging everything to strength is probably inaccurate anyway, so we don't need to worry about the system predicting that a character with Strength 33 can carry a tonne of stuff.

For the core dice, note that you don't need to buy any caltrops in order to generate d4 results, you can just use a d8.

[Ziegander]

Well, well, a lot of people have had a lot of things to say while I've been sleeping. Good!


Dice: If you nix d4 & d12, you'll need to reinvent the size-dependent damage scaling table.

The idea is, essentially, we're starting from scratch. Until we've arrived at the point where we're analyzing a size-dependent damage scaling damage we should treat it as though it doesn't exist and not let such things inform our decisions on what to fix before we get there.


Also, how would you differentiate Dagger damage from that of a Short Sword and other somesuch ?

Maybe differentiating damage between the two isn't necessary.


On Modifiers: [...]

You've all had a LOT to say on modifiers, what should be kept, what should be condensed and why. I guess I didn't give any good reason why I went with the five categories that I did. So before I directly respond to any of you about that, let me first give a better explanation.

The five modifier types I suggested collapse all of the other modifiers into them. Circumstance, Competence, Enhancement, Inherent, and Item.


Circumstance governs all the old +/- DM fiat stuff as well as luck and size. Modifiers based on flanking and similar situations would go here as well.
Competence governs the normal skill stuff as well as dodge and insight.
Enhancement governs the normal magical stuff as well as deflection, morale, resistance, and sacred/profane (which, aside from morale, is all basically magical stuff anyway).
Inherent governs both ability and racial modifiers. Probably also natural armor.
Item governs alchemical, armor, and shield modifiers.


I can't think of any reason why any of those would need to be considered separate from one another except maybe armor and shield but only if those are kept modifying the same thing. If not, then everything should work out fine.


I'd say that any bonus that is "always on" and "always stacks even with itself" should just go ahead and be untyped. And where possible, it should be specifically called out in the rules text as "untyped".

I think I'd rather have no untyped bonuses in the game whatsoever. If something provides a modifier to a d20 roll then, in my opinion, it should always be given a type - no exceptions.


Since there are specific situations in which dodge bonuses can be lost, that needs to be kept.

I'm not following your logic. That's not a good reason by itself for why dodge bonuses should be kept. Those rules situations can be altered later. As I mentioned before, we shouldn't let the existence of rules far ahead of us stop us from making improvements to the rules directly in front of us.


Too much merging can and will kill character concepts.

I fail to see how gutting the many types of modifiers is going to kill character concepts. And if there were such character concepts whose sole existence depended on having a certain type of modifier to use and stack with other modifiers, then I'm of the opinion that it's better off dead.


Another problem is things like all the armour modifiers. Why is the benefit from armour or a shield being handled as some sort of bonus modifier in the first place. It should be an innate part of the equipment rules. Similar thing with Natural Armour, why is it a specific modifier type instead of a built in part of the creature rules.

I have no idea what you're talking about here...


There all equipment applies a modifier to relevant rolls. However this equipment modifier is based on the Base of the equipment, (which is staking), and 2 non-stacking modifier types, (Masterwork and Enchantment). This is a little more elegant and a little more flexible, but a touch harder to explain and I'd need some real thought to make it work for spells and extraordinary abilities though.

...and maybe neither do you. :smallconfused:


Regarding ability scores, I don't think that an ability score above 18 should in itself make you superhuman. I think it should make you "simply" extremely strong. Perhaps unrealistically so, but not extremely. Truly superhuman and heroic feats should be available as special abilities of some sort. Heracles doesn't strangle the Nemean Lion with his bare hands because he has 20 in Strength, he strangles the lion because he has some sort of special ability that reflects his mythic strength.

Let me see if I'm following your train of thought correctly: There are two characters who both have Str 20, but one of them has the Epic Wrestler feat and the other doesn't. Neither character is considered to be superhuman in any respects, except when the one character grapples things.

And now for another example: There are two characters who both have Str 30, but one of them has the Epic Lifting feat and the other doesn't. Neither character is considered to be superhuman in any respects, except when the one character wants to pick something up. Then he can perform such feats of strength as lifting giants over his head. But he doesn't hit and harder than the other character, he doesn't break objects any easier, and he hurls an axe at the same distance he hurls a lifted giant.

Are my examples fair comparisons to what you're saying? Do you think that no character should be considered superhuman without first obtaining some sort of superhuman ability? I would find it very odd that two characters have the same ability score but only one of them can do something special because of it, and even more odd that someone capable of one specific superhuman feat is not capable of other, more general, and seemingly related superhuman feats.


As for dice rolls, I think D&D could use some sort of mechanics for degrees of success so that it's not a binary matter of success/failure.

Not a bad thought. Any suggestions on how to execute the idea?


Either way, I agree with Morty -- characters shouldn't be implicitly superhuman by virtue of numbers alone. If your character has superhuman strength, they shouldn't just have Strength 20, they should also have an intrinsic that says "you are superhumanly strong. Here are some cool things you can do as a result". In fact, I'd support a system where even obtaining an extremely high ability score requires you to first obtain some sort of intrinsic that grants you cool stuff to do with it.

Ah, now that's an interesting change of tune from you. Trust me, I would definitely want characters that have superhuman attributes to be able to do cool things with them, but I'm not sure that capping them without first gaining the Epic Attribute feat is a good idea. However, I don't dismiss the idea out of hand, it may have more merit than I'm seeing at the moment.

[Morty]

Let me see if I'm following your train of thought correctly: There are two characters who both have Str 20, but one of them has the Epic Wrestler feat and the other doesn't. Neither character is considered to be superhuman in any respects, except when the one character grapples things.

Yes, that's more or less what I had in mind. Both characters are really strong, but the character who has the Epic Wrestler feat can wrestle giant monsters to death like Heracles or Beowulf did.


And now for another example: There are two characters who both have Str 30, but one of them has the Epic Lifting feat and the other doesn't. Neither character is considered to be superhuman in any respects, except when the one character wants to pick something up. Then he can perform such feats of strength as lifting giants over his head. But he doesn't hit and harder than the other character, he doesn't break objects any easier, and he hurls an axe at the same distance he hurls a lifted giant.

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking about, maybe except the same distance for the axe and giant part.

My reasoning behind this idea is that ability scores themselves don't really feel like enough to cover the entire range of capabilities D&D characters can have, given their linear progression. It's sort of similar to the problem of Fighter, really - it's easier to represent larger-than-life, heroic exploits with unique abilities than bigger numbers. Exalted also represents superhuman powers of the Chosen with Charms rather than just dots. Not that Exalted (except possibly for 3e when it comes out) is an example of good game design, mind you.


Not a bad thought. Any suggestions on how to execute the idea?

The simplest way to do it would be to clarify what happens when you beat the DC by a given amount, similar to what the WoD games do it. For instance, if you beat your Climb check DC by 5 or more, the time it takes you to climb is lowered. It's lowered even more if you beat it by 10 or more. I'm not sure if there are any d20 games that already do it. It definietly wouldn't work in the skill system as 3.5 D&D has it, but in one built around this assumption, it might.

[Ziegander]

My reasoning behind this idea is that ability scores themselves don't really feel like enough to cover the entire range of capabilities D&D characters can have, given their linear progression. It's sort of similar to the problem of Fighter, really - it's easier to represent larger-than-life, heroic exploits with unique abilities than bigger numbers. Exalted also represents superhuman powers of the Chosen with Charms rather than just dots. Not that Exalted (except possibly for 3e when it comes out) is an example of good game design, mind you.

I never meant to suggest that a character's ability scores be the full definition of his or her capabilities. I merely want to explore ways to make the ability score system better reflect that, after a certain advancement point your character is capable of stuff no real life human being can match, and beyond that, allow for really, obviously superhuman stuff like running too fast to be seen and stomping so hard it causes an earthquake.

You wouldn't find it odd for a character to only have obvious superhuman strength in specific, player-selected situations like bending bars and grappling, and in all other situations he's just a strong guy but nothing out of the unrealistic range?


The simplest way to do it would be to clarify what happens when you beat the DC by a given amount, similar to what the WoD games do it. For instance, if you beat your Climb check DC by 5 or more, the time it takes you to climb is lowered. It's lowered even more if you beat it by 10 or more. I'm not sure if there are any d20 games that already do it. It definietly wouldn't work in the skill system as 3.5 D&D has it, but in one built around this assumption, it might.

Well, the d20 skill system sort of does this, but it does it the opposite way. In d20 you can take a penalty to your roll to achieve a greater success, if you succeed. Under this model, aiming for this sort of success, or not, is in the hands of the player. Doing it your way, there are no "rushed" checks, only routine checks that fortuitously get done faster (or better).

[Morty]

I never meant to suggest that a character's ability scores be the full definition of his or her capabilities. I merely want to explore ways to make the ability score system better reflect that, after a certain advancement point your character is capable of stuff no real life human being can match, and beyond that, allow for really, obviously superhuman stuff like running too fast to be seen and stomping so hard it causes an earthquake.

You wouldn't find it odd for a character to only have obvious superhuman strength in specific, player-selected situations like bending bars and grappling, and in all other situations he's just a strong guy but nothing out of the unrealistic range?

That's a good point. Such abilities would probably need to be broader than that. And my intention wasn't that without them, your character should always have realistic capabilities - a character with Strength 20 should be unrealistically strong, but for truly epic feats like punching through walls and such you should need abilities. Mostly, I want the passage from "unrealistic, but not overly so" to "stuff of legends" to be a bit more pronounced than just ticking your ability score from 17 to 18.


Well, the d20 skill system sort of does this, but it does it the opposite way. In d20 you can take a penalty to your roll to achieve a greater success, if you succeed. Under this model, aiming for this sort of success, or not, is in the hands of the player. Doing it your way, there are no "rushed" checks, only routine checks that fortuitously get done faster (or better).

I'm not sure what you mean by voluntarily taking penalties to your rolls. Can you clarify that?

[Ziegander]

That's a good point. Such abilities would probably need to be broader than that. And my intention wasn't that without them, your character should always have realistic capabilities - a character with Strength 20 should be unrealistically strong, but for truly epic feats like punching through walls and such you should need abilities. Mostly, I want the passage from "unrealistic, but not overly so" to "stuff of legends" to be a bit more pronounced than just ticking your ability score from 17 to 18.

Okay, that makes more sense now.


I'm not sure what you mean by voluntarily taking penalties to your rolls. Can you clarify that?

Sure. For example, if you want to try and Craft something faster you add 10 to the crafting DC (which is the equivalent of taking a -10 penalty). If you want to move faster while Tumbling you voluntarily accept a -10 penalty to your Tumble check. Same goes for accelerated balancing or climbing by accepting a -5 penalty.

It may not be as broadly applied as what you would want, but at least it is there to some extent in d20.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Here's the first instance of d20 getting somewhat complicated. d20 uses d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20, and d% to play. Now, we could keep all of that intact if we want, OR we could attempt to reduce the amount and types of dice being rolled around. I'm not saying either way is a good idea, but in my mind, if we wanted to reduce the dice I think the best way would be to use only d20s, d6s, d8s, and d10s. The d20 is used for the resolution mechanics and then having a range between d6, d8, and d10 gives some granularity between light, medium, and heavy attacks (and other such things). Not to mention, keeping the d10 gives us an easy replacement for d% dice.

Another thing to consider is that if we reduced the dice used, it makes the game a little easier to play (players don't need to buy as many strange dice to play), while doing very little recognizable change to the way the game looks and feels. Few players would notice if all classes got either d6, d8, or d10 HD and if all attacks used some variation of d6s, d8s, and d10s for damage.
I've never seen someone confused by "too many different dice types." Moreover, dice are already sold in D&D sets, be they those little one-of-each boxes or one-pound bags of random dice. I think this falls under "don't fix what isn't broken."


<modifiers>
I wholly agree that D&D has too many modifiers. 5 seems like a reasonable number of different options.

Speaking entirely personally, I'd like to see a system more like M&M. That is to say, you can stack as many bonuses as you want, but there's a hard cap on how big your numbers can be, and beyond that, 95% of modifiers don't help you.


ability modifiers
Ability modifiers are a thing that confuse people. They don't seem to serve any purpose besides being sacred cows, and I don't think that they're necessarily a vital part of the game. I would much rather see a merging of modifiers and scores-- it's simpler and it cuts out a lot of math/table trips for newbies.

[Carl]

@Ziegander. Let me quote 3 sections from the SRD for you.


An armour bonus applies to Armour Class and is granted by armour or by a spell or magical effect that mimics armour.


A natural armour bonus improves Armour Class resulting from a creature's naturally tough hide.


A shield bonus improves Armour Class and is granted by a shield or by a spell or magic effect that mimics a shield.


My point was why are these 3 modifier types even modifiers types really?

Honestly all 3 should be innate parts of the fact that you have natural armour, or your wearing armour, or your carrying a shield. The magical effects should be going elsewhere.

And if your really must have equipment as a modifier. Have just one major type of Modifier.

The Equipment Modifier.

This would be the sum of all the equipments base stats and any magical/master-work bonuses to those.


Your short-list isn't bad but i don't see any discussion of stacking/non-stacking in there, and that small a list of bonuses probably won't be enough without some stacking allowed, (never mind unless item is stacking shield + armour would be useless).

[Morty]

Sure. For example, if you want to try and Craft something faster you add 10 to the crafting DC (which is the equivalent of taking a -10 penalty). If you want to move faster while Tumbling you voluntarily accept a -10 penalty to your Tumble check. Same goes for accelerated balancing or climbing by accepting a -5 penalty.

It may not be as broadly applied as what you would want, but at least it is there to some extent in d20.

I see. I forgot about those. It is true that the two approaches aim for the same thing, only from two directions. Still, I think they're not mutually exclusive, so long as the benefits do not overlap - you can try to accomplish something that's more difficult willingly, but sometimes you also do exceptionally well at a given task. My idea comes from the New World of Darkness, there this sort of thing applies.

[Yitzi]

Circumstance governs all the old +/- DM fiat stuff as well as luck and size. Modifiers based on flanking and similar situations would go here as well.
Competence governs the normal skill stuff as well as dodge and insight.
Enhancement governs the normal magical stuff as well as deflection, morale, resistance, and sacred/profane (which, aside from morale, is all basically magical stuff anyway).
Inherent governs both ability and racial modifiers. Probably also natural armor.
Item governs alchemical, armor, and shield modifiers.


I'd use a slightly different list (which is more than 5):
-Circumstance governs all the DM fiat stuff, as well as size and flanking. So the same as you said, but not luck. It stacks with itself, so long as it's two different sources, but is never granted by spells or magical items. (Small circumstance bonuses may be granted by masterwork items, though; only one such item can apply to any given roll though.)
-Competence pretty much as you said; it also includes bonuses from BAB, skill ranks, and most class features. It stacks with itself, but is never directly granted by spells or magical items. (There may be rare spells or items that grant extra BAB or skill ranks, though.)
-Enhancement covers luck and alchemical plus everything you said EXCEPT morale. (It does not cover morale.) It can easily be granted by items and spells of the Transmutation or (more rarely) Abjuration school (these being the usual source), but does not stack with itself.
-Morale covers bonuses from Enchantment spells/items, plus class features such as bardic music and a barbarian's rage. It does not stack with itself, and the bonuses it gives tend to be fairly small.
-There are no inherent bonuses. Ability and racial bonuses are each their own types. Natural armor, armor, and shields all give unnamed bonuses, though you can't use two of the same subtype at once.

[Ashtagon]

@Ziegander. Let me quote 3 sections from the SRD for you.

My point was why are these 3 modifier types even modifiers types really?

Honestly all 3 should be innate parts of the fact that you have natural armour, or your wearing armour, or your carrying a shield. The magical effects should be going elsewhere.

And if your really must have equipment as a modifier. Have just one major type of Modifier.

The Equipment Modifier.

This would be the sum of all the equipments base stats and any magical/master-work bonuses to those.


Your short-list isn't bad but i don't see any discussion of stacking/non-stacking in there, and that small a list of bonuses probably won't be enough without some stacking allowed, (never mind unless item is stacking shield + armour would be useless).

You're merging two different types of bonus in your reading of the rules.

Armour, shield, and natural bonuses are mundane bonuses inherent to the physical object or creature.

Enhancement bonuses to armour or shield (are there ever any enhancement bonuses to natural armour?) are an additional bonus on top of the armour and shield bonuses.

In effect, a single character can have:


Armour bonus (the +4 from his chainmail)
Enhancement armour bonus (the additional +1 because his chainmail is magical)
Shield bonus (the +2 from his shield)
Enhancement shield bonus (the additional +5 because its a magic shield)
Natural armour bonus
(sundry other bonuses not relevant to this point)


As currently written, they are all uniquely named, and so stack with each other. All five of those specifically identified above are ignored by touch attacks, and a character can have one of each of the five.

If you try to merge them, you then end up with complicated rules about which ones actually can stack with each other.


I think I'd rather have no untyped bonuses in the game whatsoever. If something provides a modifier to a d20 roll then, in my opinion, it should always be given a type - no exceptions.

If a bonus is always on, always stacks with everything, and can never be removed or negated except by the express will of the person who benefits from it, what game benefit can be derived from assigning it a type?


I'm not following your logic. That's not a good reason by itself for why dodge bonuses should be kept. Those rules situations can be altered later. As I mentioned before, we shouldn't let the existence of rules far ahead of us stop us from making improvements to the rules directly in front of us.

Okay, if you have something that functions as a dodge bonus in 3.x (such as, I dunno, dodging), then it is very easy to say "If you can't dodge (define dodging here), you lose all your dodge bonuses. But if bonuses never have the "dodge" flag, then you'd have to call out those items individually, which means you'll likely miss a few as the game is developed.

In this regard, "dodge" isn't a flag that marks stackability, but a flag that marks how those bonuses behave in various circumstances (just like "fighter bonus feat" is a flag that marks which feats can be gained by a fighter, avoiding the need to rewrite the fighter class each time a splatbook came out).

[Amechra]

A suggestion for higher ability scores; namely, cap the bonus at some amount (having it go from -5 to +5 sounds good), and then every X points above that point lets you pick out Ex abilities that reflect being legendary at that ability score.

For example, I'm playing Steve the Warrior, who has a Strength of 22; this gives him access to a single Strength awesome thing, which he uses to, say, gain the ability to use people he's grappling as shields/clubs. His Strength modifier is still +5 (prevents him from falling off the RNG), he just gets cool stuff.

High Dexterity could give you speed boosts and the like, high Constitution could let you run for hours, high Charisma might give you stuff like the ability to sell ice to frost giants, high Intelligence could grant you perfect memory or the ability to read entire books in seconds, and high Wisdom could pretty much let you see the future.

I have nothing to add for any of the other points.

[Carl]

You're merging two different types of bonus in your reading of the rules.

Armour, shield, and natural bonuses are mundane bonuses inherent to the physical object or creature.

Enhancement bonuses to armour or shield (are there ever any enhancement bonuses to natural armour?) are an additional bonus on top of the armour and shield bonuses.

In effect, a single character can have:
Armour bonus (the +4 from his chainmail)
Enhancement armour bonus (the additional +1 because his chainmail is magical)
Shield bonus (the +2 from his shield)
Enhancement shield bonus (the additional +5 because its a magic shield)
Natural armour bonus
(sundry other bonuses not relevant to this point)

As currently written, they are all uniquely named, and so stack with each other. All five of those specifically identified above are ignored by touch attacks, and a character can have one of each of the five.

If you try to merge them, you then end up with complicated rules about which ones actually can stack with each other.

Another one who totally missed the point.

If your wearing plate armour it should not ideally be a case of 10+8 Armour bonus AC. It should just be AC is now 18. If you are (example), a Black Great Wyrm it shouldn't be 10+36 Natural Armour bonus. It should be Base AC 46. Obviously there's the question of how shields factor in or how a creature wearing armour and having Natural Armour works. But my point is that AC due to armour or shields or a thick skin isn't actually a bonus of any kind, it's an inherent fact of having those things. Treating it as a modifier encourages it to be used as a modifier type on other things such as spells and magic items when what it's representing is a non-magical inherent equipment/creature property. That to me is factually a very different thing to an actual modifier.

[lesser_minion]

A suggestion for higher ability scores; namely, cap the bonus at some amount (having it go from -5 to +5 sounds good), and then every X points above that point lets you pick out Ex abilities that reflect being legendary at that ability score.

An excellent way to do it.

The central issue here is that a character shouldn't be superhuman without their player having to think about what it means for their character to be superhuman. Whether the player just gets a perk for having a high ability score or has to obtain a perk in order to get a high ability score is neither here nor there, really.

Ideally, all ability scores will be worth investing in for all characters (so that the decision of which score to improve involves less monkey-work and more choice), so every ability would need perks that can appeal to any character. That probably won't happen with the D&D six, but we could probably ensure that all of dexterity, constitution, intelligence, and wisdom all have some appeal no matter your class.

[The Troubadour]

What I know is that something needs to be done with modifiers. We have to reduce the amount of modifier types, and we have to simplify the stacking rules. Sound good? Let me know what you guys think about the issue, and especially if you have other suggestions/solutions.

Might it not be easier to simply remove all categories and make all bonuses stackable, but then highly limit the availability of bonuses in the system?

[Ashtagon]

Another one who totally missed the point.

If your wearing plate armour it should not ideally be a case of 10+8 Armour bonus AC. It should just be AC is now 18. ...

So are you planning on eliminating touch attacks from the game? Because if they aren't flagged in some way, it gets awfully complicated figuring out which ones to disregard when someone makes a touch attack on you.

If you make the armour bonus an inherent part of "base AC", what you actually have there is an untyped bonus, not a higher base AC.

[Ziegander]

If a bonus is always on, always stacks with everything, and can never be removed or negated except by the express will of the person who benefits from it, what game benefit can be derived from assigning it a type?

I'm saying that those types of bonuses/penalties shouldn't exist.


Okay, if you have something that functions as a dodge bonus in 3.x (such as, I dunno, dodging), then it is very easy to say "If you can't dodge (define dodging here), you lose all your dodge bonuses. But if bonuses never have the "dodge" flag, then you'd have to call out those items individually, which means you'll likely miss a few as the game is developed.

You mean like when you're flat-footed? You'd, potentially, lose your Dex bonus to AC as well as any Competence bonuses to AC you might enjoy. Seems easy enough.


A suggestion for higher ability scores; namely, cap the bonus at some amount (having it go from -5 to +5 sounds good), and then every X points above that point lets you pick out Ex abilities that reflect being legendary at that ability score.

For example, I'm playing Steve the Warrior, who has a Strength of 22; this gives him access to a single Strength awesome thing, which he uses to, say, gain the ability to use people he's grappling as shields/clubs. His Strength modifier is still +5 (prevents him from falling off the RNG), he just gets cool stuff.

High Dexterity could give you speed boosts and the like, high Constitution could let you run for hours, high Charisma might give you stuff like the ability to sell ice to frost giants, high Intelligence could grant you perfect memory or the ability to read entire books in seconds, and high Wisdom could pretty much let you see the future.

VERY interesting. Still runs into the issue that the RNG then caps out at +5 (which has pros as well as cons) while your tossing around mountains, but there is a great slickness to this sort of approach.


Another one who totally missed the point.

If your wearing plate armour it should not ideally be a case of 10+8 Armour bonus AC. It should just be AC is now 18. If you are (example), a Black Great Wyrm it shouldn't be 10+36 Natural Armour bonus. It should be Base AC 46.

Well, Carl, considering this is the first time you've actually articulated your point coherently, you can't exactly blame him or anyone else for missing your point. Still, I wouldn't call that explicitly better than the bonus method, and it has issues of its own.


Might it not be easier to simply remove all categories and make all bonuses stackable, but then highly limit the availability of bonuses in the system?

I'm not sure about that. You're essentially talking about making all bonuses untyped bonuses? If that was done it seems like it would make designing the game much harder. In fact, it seems impossible. I can't imagine a game where over the course of 20 levels we could possibly keep the number of bonuses players could conceivably stack together down to any reasonable number. Unless of course we removed all bonuses to the d20 roll, apart from inherent bonuses (such as from ability scores and chassis), from the game entirely. In fact, if we didn't remove all such bonuses from the game, I imagine the opposite would happen. Characters would pile up rare little bonuses here and there, +1s and +2s that don't mean a lot on their own or at low level, and once reaching mid-to-high level they have tons of stacking bonuses to things and the RNG is all out of whack.

[Just to Browse]

I also like the idea that even skills can have "critical successes." My suggested change in the rules here would be that, by default, there are no confirmation rolls and then, as you said, any d20 roll is "especially successful" on a 20 and "especially disastrous" on a 1.I like it, but one thing to think about is that no confirmation rolls and auto-successes means that every one in 20 of anything is an auto-success at anything--perhaps some part of the core rules could also introduce thresholds for performance ("You must meet certain levels of competency to even attempt certain skill checks") to stop groups of 20 orcs with vorpal weapons from getting OTKs,

On Modifiers, Again
So, arguing from Seerow's base, I actually think there should only be three modifiers: Item and Enhancement should be rolled into one, and Competence and Inherent should be rolled into one. This will kick bonus stacking in the balls, but if don't let magic grant buffs to all of those categories, a trained character will still reliably outperform an untrained character.


I agree with you, but then what do we do? Action points per point of superhuman modifier which can be spent to ramp up d20 rolls associated with the ability score?I don't have a damn clue!:smallsmile:


I agree, but those sort of rules should be exceptions noted in the Class entries and not in the broad, core Abilities Scores section.While that makes some sense, if every class has some governing attribute, it would actually be useful to have a quick blurb saying "All classes tend to have abilities focused around one or two attributes. When creating a character, pay attention to which attribute your class focuses on and make sure to stay competent in it."

Or something of the like.

[Grod_The_Giant]

A suggestion for higher ability scores; namely, cap the bonus at some amount (having it go from -5 to +5 sounds good), and then every X points above that point lets you pick out Ex abilities that reflect being legendary at that ability score.
While I do really like this idea, I'm afraid that it could lead to overcomplexity. I mean, already D&D has:

Class abilities, ideally with something being granted every level
Spells, maneuvers, invocations, what have you, which usually come on top of class abilities.
Feats, many of which grant new abilities or situational bonuses which must be kept track of
Items, doing the same
Skill tricks, doing the same

If we add, I don't know, "ability tricks" onto the list, too... it starts to get bloated. But it is a cool idea, I admit.

To minimize the 5e-style worries about d20 rolls overshadowing modifier values, you could either a) have an ability trick that says you automatically beat anyone without said trick in an opposed check, or b) have some sort of Advantage mechanic, where every X points over your opponent's score lets you roll another d20 and take the best result.


On the subject of degrees of success: I'd say steal the concept of Degrees of Success or Failure from M&M wholesale. For every 5 points you beat the DC, it's an extra degree of success, and for every 5 points you fail, it's an extra degree of failure. Degrees of success grant a bonus to damage, let you move farther with a climb check, and so on. Degrees of failure mean you suffer a worse effect from the spell, lose your grip and fall, and so on.

On the subject of modifiers: When you get right down to it, there are really two types: things that are almost always on, and things that you have to pay attention to. An enhancement bonus is the first type, while a competence bonus is the second. With that said, you could get:

Always on:

Armor
Enhancement
Inherent/Racial/Untyped


Situational:

Circumstance
Competence
Shield

[The Troubadour]

I'm not sure about that. You're essentially talking about making all bonuses untyped bonuses? (...) Unless of course we removed all bonuses to the d20 roll, apart from inherent bonuses (such as from ability scores and chassis), from the game entirely.

I guess that's what I'm saying. I mean, take a feat like Athletic, with its +2 bonus to Climb and Swim; is such a feat really necessary for the game? If a player wants his PC to be good at Climbing and Swimming, wouldn't he simply increase the skill ranks of both skills? Likewise, do we need all the various buffing spells we currently have in the game?

[Ziegander]

I like it, but one thing to think about is that no confirmation rolls and auto-successes means that every one in 20 of anything is an auto-success at anything--perhaps some part of the core rules could also introduce thresholds for performance ("You must meet certain levels of competency to even attempt certain skill checks") to stop groups of 20 orcs with vorpal weapons from getting OTKs

Well, remember, specific trumps general. So while this might be the general rule, exceptions can be built in as class features or special abilities. Did you notice my Fighter rewrite's Unimpeachable Skill ability? Who originally came up with the name for that ability anyway? Amechra? I know I used the name and the original intent for the ability for two different abilities, so I'd like to give credit where it's due if someone remembers where that's from.


On Modifiers, Again
So, arguing from Seerow's base, I actually think there should only be three modifiers: Item and Enhancement should be rolled into one, and Competence and Inherent should be rolled into one. This will kick bonus stacking in the balls, but if don't let magic grant buffs to all of those categories, a trained character will still reliably outperform an untrained character.

Well, before we get out of hand by decreasing the number of modifiers TOO far, I say we stick with just the five, playtest, and see how it feels. If it feels like we can be bold and narrow things down to three or even two, then we can playtest it that way and work from there.


I don't have a damn clue!:smallsmile:

Heh! Well, I think Amechra has landed on a really good idea that just needs some more thought put into it. I really like the benefits of keeping the RNG so easily controlled with -5/+5 and special abilities becoming available beyond the +5 range. It can get a little wonky, but with some polish I think it could be a great system.


While that makes some sense, if every class has some governing attribute, it would actually be useful to have a quick blurb saying "All classes tend to have abilities focused around one or two attributes. When creating a character, pay attention to which attribute your class focuses on and make sure to stay competent in it."

Or something of the like.

Of course, but then that's completely different from "spellcasters are special and here's why," and doesn't also come with the baggage of, "mental scores only matter if you cast spells." So, a blurb like that, as long as we revisit what the ability scores mean just by themselves, but also what they mean to the classes, could be fine.


While I do really like this idea, I'm afraid that it could lead to overcomplexity. [...] If we add, I don't know, "ability tricks" onto the list, too... it starts to get bloated. But it is a cool idea, I admit.

A way to minimize the bloat would be to have each class gain a number of options (powers, whatever, etc) that can only be accessed by characters with "superhuman" attributes. So, while Str 22 doesn't grant any numerical advantages over Str 20 it is required if you want to enter the superstrength power arena.


To minimize the 5e-style worries about d20 rolls overshadowing modifier values, you could either a) have an ability trick that says you automatically beat anyone without said trick in an opposed check, or b) have some sort of Advantage mechanic, where every X points over your opponent's score lets you roll another d20 and take the best result.

Also interesting and cool ideas.

At this stage I worry that we are moving a little ahead of ourselves, but it's no bad thing to come up with cool ideas and put them on the back burner. I think it's safe to move on to a more detailed discussion about Ability Scores now and what they mean to the game and what they should be doing, and keep some of these awesome ideas saved for later. I'll be starting a new thread soon (but don't think that means we need to stop talking about the stuff in this thread).


On the subject of degrees of success: I'd say steal the concept of Degrees of Success or Failure from M&M wholesale. For every 5 points you beat the DC, it's an extra degree of success, and for every 5 points you fail, it's an extra degree of failure. Degrees of success grant a bonus to damage, let you move farther with a climb check, and so on. Degrees of failure mean you suffer a worse effect from the spell, lose your grip and fall, and so on.

I would be okay with this. I think keeping some of the self-inflicted penalty rules to certain checks would be fine as well, but I do really like the degrees of success and degrees of failure mechanics. Though, if implemented, they should have separate rules about "critical success" and "critical failure," that way you don't get TOO many degrees of success from an automatic success or too many degrees of failure from an auto-fail.


I guess that's what I'm saying. I mean, take a feat like Athletic, with its +2 bonus to Climb and Swim; is such a feat really necessary for the game? If a player wants his PC to be good at Climbing and Swimming, wouldn't he simply increase the skill ranks of both skills? Likewise, do we need all the various buffing spells we currently have in the game?

I think you'd be looking at a radically different game. One that is potentially worth playtesting, but one that may not end up feeling like something any of us want to play. Just think of all the items and spells such a rule writes out of the game entirely. HUNDREDS. Literally hundreds. I wouldn't be surprised if the final count was over 1000. It might make designing the game extremely difficult. Or it might make it easier but less fun to play. We can't know until we test it out, I guess.

[Grod_The_Giant]

A way to minimize the bloat would be to have each class gain a number of options (powers, whatever, etc) that can only be accessed by characters with "superhuman" attributes. So, while Str 22 doesn't grant any numerical advantages over Str 20 it is required if you want to enter the superstrength power arena.
So have the "ability tricks" be granted by the classes? So that a fighter and a barbarian can get different strength tricks?


I would be okay with this. I think keeping some of the self-inflicted penalty rules to certain checks would be fine as well, but I do really like the degrees of success and degrees of failure mechanics. Though, if implemented, they should have separate rules about "critical success" and "critical failure," that way you don't get TOO many degrees of success from an automatic success or too many degrees of failure from an auto-fail.
True. In M&M, you only get degrees of success if your power has a specific modifier. Which also tends to be associated with lower-damage powers, since those have higher accuracies, and so are more likely to get degrees of success.

On thing you might do, I suppose, is have the crit have some extra effect, instead of just doing extra damage. So if you crit with a blunt weapon you get some sort of knockdown, a crit with a slashing weapon inflicts bleeding, I don't know.

[Raineh Daze]

Hm, chiming in:

I agree with the idea of constrained modifiers and tricks on top of it (MAD would be much less of an issue if you didn't have to have +3 to everything whilst other people are focusing on +10 to one thing). Also the idea of not having scores because, honestly, all they represent is the ability to roll more dice for ability damage and buffs, which may not have any impact if you roll a 1 (also, it makes levelling up even more pointless that way). So, -5 to +5, no inexplicable nonfunctional 10 as the average point.

Degrees of success are also fun. The closest thing I can remember in the SRD is perform checks, for piddling amounts of cash (if you can roll a 35/40/whatever, what use is 4d6 gp?), but hey, it's something.

On bonuses: whilst types are nice, stacking really seems like something that should come from sources. :smallconfused:

[Amechra]

Maybe have a set of basic tricks everyone can access, but then classes themselves hand out a section of other cool tricks?

So anyone with a high Intelligence can grab the trick that grants them an encyclopedic memory, but only Fighters can grab Weapon Aptitude.

[Grod_The_Giant]

In return, we could perhaps ditch the idea of skill tricks? Fold the few worthwhile ones into feats.

[Raineh Daze]

Maybe have a set of basic tricks everyone can access, but then classes themselves hand out a section of other cool tricks?

So anyone with a high Intelligence can grab the trick that grants them an encyclopedic memory, but only Fighters can grab Weapon Aptitude.

That gives me an idea: rather than simply handing out really high end class features for free and letting specialised development in some area happen alongside that, require unlocking things with ability tricks too? Martial classes would basically be doing that anyway, and maybe it would help with stopping spellcasters from getting everything ever, as they have to pay a toll they otherwise wouldn't to get at the best things.

My track record with late night ideas isn't good, though. :smallredface:

[Just to Browse]

In return, we could perhaps ditch the idea of skill tricks? Fold the few worthwhile ones into feats.

Yes please.

[The Troubadour]

I think you'd be looking at a radically different game. One that is potentially worth playtesting, but one that may not end up feeling like something any of us want to play. Just think of all the items and spells such a rule writes out of the game entirely. HUNDREDS. Literally hundreds. I wouldn't be surprised if the final count was over 1000. It might make designing the game extremely difficult. Or it might make it easier but less fun to play. We can't know until we test it out, I guess.

I usually don't like to appeal to older editions, but OD&D - even at its most complex, in Rules Cyclopedia - managed it. 4th Edition also managed it for a little while, before the designers started breaking their own self-imposed rules. :-)

[Carl]

@Ziegander:


Another problem is things like all the armour modifiers. Why is the benefit from armour or a shield being handled as some sort of bonus modifier in the first place.


My point was why are these 3 modifier types even modifiers types really?

If that was unclear you need your eye's testing:smallwink:.

I admit maybe i did confuse matter a tad with my tangent to that point, but i've no idea how Ashtagon came up with what he did.

@Ashtagon: I wouldn't. Touch attacks getting to bypass AC is a fairly big problem IMO. Martial classes are defined by several attributes, AC, HP's, Attack rolls, Damage rolls. Boosting those should be a basic part of powering up any martial class as they level, (me and seerow disagree on how but that's ok). So having attacks, (like touch attacks), that just bypass a huge chunk of AC, and are relatively common is not a sound idea in the slightest. It's also yet another contributer to the whole "heavy armour is useless" side of things because a lighter armour and a higher dex makes you harder to hit with many spells. I admit some work would be needed to ensure spell casters aren't left unable to hit a player in armour entirely. But characters in lots of armour, (or possessed of other AC source), should be inherently less affected by them.

[Tarvon000]

In return, we could perhaps ditch the idea of skill tricks? Fold the few worthwhile ones into feats.

This gives me an idea: why not make the "ability tricks" feats as well?

Also, @Carl: I agree that armor isn't quite as useful as it should be, but removing touch attacks entirely seems like overkill. After all, Dexterity bonuses can be bypassed almost as easily; you just have to be flanked or flat-footed. Plus, removing touch attacks creates many situations that are flavorfully very strange; how does wearing armor protect someone from, say, a ghost?

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Also, @Carl: I agree that armor isn't quite as useful as it should be, but removing touch attacks entirely seems like overkill. After all, Dexterity bonuses can be bypassed almost as easily; you just have to be flanked or flat-footed. Plus, removing touch attacks creates many situations that are flavorfully very strange; how does wearing armor protect someone from, say, a ghost?

Maybe the cosmic "idea" of armor is real enough to stop the ghost? :smalltongue:

[nonsi]

In return, we could perhaps ditch the idea of skill tricks? Fold the few worthwhile ones into feats.

Why would you wanna waste feats on things you could selectively put 2 skill points into ?

[Durazno]

I imagine skill-trick feats looking something like the feats that give you a few different tactical options. So for instance there might be a feat that says, "If you have at least 5 ranks of balance, you gain Nimble Charge. If you have at least 5 ranks of tumble, you gain Tumbling Crawl. If you have both, you also gain Twisted Charge."

...

Now that I look at it, it seems like a bit of a mess. I'm not sure how it would be worded, and the tricks they grant would probably have to be more thematically linked.

(Source for tricks: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20070105a&page=5.)

[Grod_The_Giant]

This gives me an idea: why not make the "ability tricks" feats as well?
Maybe, yeah. You'd probably want to give more feats, though-- maybe every odd-numbered level instead of every third.


Why would you wanna waste feats on things you could selectively put 2 skill points into ?
You as a game designer would want to do such a thing to keep the system concise and consistent. You get your main abilities from your class, customize your character with abilities from feats, and have a few magic item toys.

Practically, you would probably want to pump up the skill tricks a bit-- say, allow them to be used at will-- but having so many different sources of new abilities is confusing to newbies, makes character creation take even longer, and leads to bloated characters with too many abilities to keep track of.

[Morty]

Maybe, yeah. You'd probably want to give more feats, though-- maybe every odd-numbered level instead of every third.


The feat system in general could use some rethinking, really. There's never enough feat slots and too many feats you simply need to take as a given character type - 90% of melee fighters need to take Power Attack, no ifs and no buts. More feat slots are a start, but maybe there are other things that could be done. Probably further down the line, though.

[nonsi]

The feat system in general could use some rethinking, really. There's never enough feat slots and too many feats you simply need to take as a given character type - 90% of melee fighters need to take Power Attack, no ifs and no buts. More feat slots are a start, but maybe there are other things that could be done. Probably further down the line, though.

There should be limiting factors that are imposed on spellcasters, such as applying only one metamagic per spell casting.

[lesser_minion]

I could probably get behind a system where you don't gain ability tricks automatically, and instead have to obtain a feat or learn them through a character class.

The spoiler contains a couple of partially-formed ideas for ability tricks, which I assume we don't really want to discuss until later:

Power is a resource cost; Rarity simply indicates how hard a trick or a spell is to learn in the first place; Focus and Complexity are used to limit how many different spells or other tricks you can have active at once. More precise details TBD.

Fog of War:

Initiating this trick is an immediate action.

You may initiate this trick when [TBD]

When you initiate this trick:

You gain the benefits of total concealment until the start of your next turn.
You may move up to half your speed, without provoking attacks of opportunity.


Dexterity; high complexity

Perfect Concentration:

While you sustain this trick:

You are not considered to be rushed, threatened, or distracted for the purposes of skill usage.
You may disregard any fear or intimidation effects currently applied to you (this does not remove these effects, which will resume their effects when you stop sustaining this trick).
Your character's focus is doubled.


Wisdom; moderate power (any source)

EDIT: Nerfed the second one.

[The Troubadour]

The feat system in general could use some rethinking, really. There's never enough feat slots and too many feats you simply need to take as a given character type - 90% of melee fighters need to take Power Attack, no ifs and no buts.

I've always thought that feats like Power Attack, Combat Expertise and similar ones (like the one from Complete Psionics - I think it's called Reckless Attack?) should be combat maneuvers open to everyone, limited at most by BAB. Then, the Fighter could have as proper class features special abilities that enhanced those maneuvers in some way (for instance, when using Combat Expertise, add the AC bonus gained to all saves as well, things like that).

[lesser_minion]

I've always thought that feats like Power Attack, Combat Expertise and similar ones (like the one from Complete Psionics - I think it's called Reckless Attack?) should be combat maneuvers open to everyone, limited at most by BAB.

Well, fighting defensively already is. Despite the impressive levels of mouth-foam some people seemed to exhibit when Pathfinder made power attack binary, I think it was the right basic idea. "How much should I power attack for?", in the current system, is a question best answered with a spreadsheet. A binary or ternary system would be far more interesting, IMHO.

[Raineh Daze]

Perfect concentration seems to make things too easy on Divine Casters.

Also, I can get behind having more abilities (though I would shift Reflex to Agility from Dexterity, since your ability to manipulate objects and twistiness aren't the same), since I forgot to mention that.

Binary Power Attack reminds me of NWN. -5 to attack, +5 to damage, and Improved Power Attack was -10, +10. I never take the feat for the second, since anything you can hit with that penalty is probably dead anyway. :smallconfused:

[The Troubadour]

I never take the feat for the second, since anything you can hit with that penalty is probably dead anyway. :smallconfused:

Maybe the improved version could inflict a -5 penalty to both attack rolls and AC, in exchange for a +20/+30 bonus to damage.

Edit: Here's an initial proposal for what I was thinking:

Defensive Fighting maneuver: +2 AC and Reflexes (+3 for both with shield), -4 damage
Reckless Offense maneuver: -2 AC and Reflexes, +2 attack and damage (+3 for both with 2-handed weapon)
Power Attack: -2 AC and attack, +4 damage (+6 with 2-handed weapon)
Careful Attack: +2 attack, -2 damage (additional +1 for AC and Reflexes with shield)

[Frozen_Feet]

Regarding feats:

We're not quite there yet, but here's my two cents:

Look at feats. Now look at "rogue special abilities". Now look at "Fighter bonus feats".

Realize "rogue special abilities" are just "fighter bonus feats" with a different name. Realize this same truth applies to most non-caster "class features" and "alternate class features".

Feats were, pretty clearly, initially intended to be class features. Witness how monk's stunning fist, pretty much their iconic ability, is a feat. Sadly, somebody screwed up their execution. Later, people looked at the feats, thought they compated poorly to "real" class features, and instead of rectifying this, concluded that feats were not "real" class features at all, but rather small nuggets of character customization somewhere between skillpoints and ACFs in worth.

This schizophrenic implementation of feats means there are some feats that are worth just a couple of skillpoints, and some that are as strong as whole class features, sometimes whole characters. (Leadership, Wild Cohort, I'm looking at you.)

I hold there are only two, mutually exclusive to really change this:

Option 1st: Remove feats in their entirety. Another list of feeble character customization options is not worth it, it is simply a needless layer of extra complexity. At worst, it becomes a tax system, like in 4th Ed, where you need to fiddle around with feats to keep your numbers competitive, and that's pretty much all what they do.

All feats that are "taxes" have to be reworked to be part of the base class chassises. For example, effects of all Fighter feats need to be boiled into the basic structure of the fighter. Item creation feats etc. become caster-specific class options. There will be no generic feat system, only "fighter special abilities", "rogue special abilities", "wizard special abilities" (*cough* SPELLS *cough*) etc.

Instead of taking feats to customize a character, a character multi-classes to get benefits excluded from their base class. Just like in past version of D&D.

Option 2nd: Make feats into actual class features. What does this mean? Well, as-is, casters get a new spell level about every 2nd or 3rd level. In our new system, each character gets a feat every 2nd or 3rd level, and each such feat is roughly comparable to advancing in spell level. (I've been aiming towards this in my feat fix, but not yet succeeded.)

However, this means we don't need the bloated class structure of existing d20. Prestige classes, specifically, can be thrown out in spades. We only need 3 or 4 base classes, akin to Generic Class variants in UA. Your character concept is not really built through picking classes - classes only give you a rough outline. Your character concept is built through picking feats. You want to be a raging barbarian? You pick the feats that give you rage and wilderness survival ability. You want to be a warrior mage? You pick feats that give you weapon & armor proficiency and ability to cast arcane spells. So on and so forth.

You can see the seeds of this different game spread all over the SRD. It just never quite makes it, because so many of the feats are lack-luster.

[Raineh Daze]

I don't see why wielding a shield should give you reflex bonuses, honestly.

Four classes seems too few. Why? Well, that way, as things expand, you get more and more options to choose from, and the built in ease of effectively multiclassing means you have even more combinations going on.

You may as well not even bother with classes if you're going to let those feats get one class's whole schtick, anyway.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I think there's some middle ground between "no feats, only class features" and "no class features, only feats." Stuff like Knowledge Devotion or Robilar's Gambit are good examples of feats which are neither required taxes (Power Attack) or useless (Acrobatic), but instead add options and capabilities to characters.

It is, I think, mechanically useful to have a system like feats. Some way of distinguishing this barbarian from that one.

[Carl]

This gives me an idea: why not make the "ability tricks" feats as well?

Also, @Carl: I agree that armor isn't quite as useful as it should be, but removing touch attacks entirely seems like overkill. After all, Dexterity bonuses can be bypassed almost as easily; you just have to be flanked or flat-footed. Plus, removing touch attacks creates many situations that are flavorfully very strange; how does wearing armor protect someone from, say, a ghost?

Thing is dexterity and dodge represent getting out of the way. If your caught in a situation where you can't do that, (no room or no ability to react), that's fine. But armour isn't like that, it never goes away, a situation like Coup de Grace aside where the target makes it trivial to target weakpoints any attack you throw has to get past armour.

As for a ghosts touch attack. Same reason a wizards scorching ray or whatever fails to hurt. All that armour interferes with the magic/supernatural/whatever power that is behind the attack. We already have the precedent set with arcane spell failure chance.

You could even take the whole concept a step further. Make Concentration a standard level granted ability score like BAB with casters getting high amounts, (divine get most, wizards get middle, and martial gets poor), with spells being a standard attack roll but with concentration and their primary caster stat replacing BAB and Dex/Strength, wit ASF replaced by a penalty to this roll.

In effect your representing the spellcaster having to shape the spell on-the-fly to account for the effect of his own and the enemies armour. You don't even need a rule for divine casters and their armour because higher base concentration allows them to be equally accurate despite wearing armour.

You could even take it a step further and allow armour wearers to add their AC as a bonus to saves vs spells if the spell does not require an attack roll.

Right now spellcasters and how their spells interact with armour is one of the biggest "casters are special" elements of the system. To some degree it's acceptable. Spells shouldn't be just another random attack. But at the same time they shouldn't be able to just laugh at one of the core elements that's supposed to exist to give meatshields some of their shielding.

[Raineh Daze]

At the same time, having any negative effect require an attack roll seems to be going too far in the opposite direction. Let alone if there's any AoE effects. Not everything is an attack. Also... honestly, that explanation makes no sense. If armour interfered with supernatural effects by default, you could never enchant it or weapons. Or much of anything else, since it must be a property of materials and not the shape. No magic items for anyone.

[lesser_minion]

Binary Power Attack reminds me of NWN. -5 to attack, +5 to damage, and Improved Power Attack was -10, +10. I never take the feat for the second, since anything you can hit with that penalty is probably dead anyway. :smallconfused:

Why would you look to a bad implementation of an idea in order to judge the value of the idea?

We've already established that we (The Troubador and I, at least) want every character to start off with the ability to use both power attack and whatever improved power attack we come up with, no questions asked, no feat taxes imposed.

And if you think about it, what exactly does being able to choose whether you want to power attack for six or seven really serve?

[Just to Browse]

Well, fighting defensively already is. Despite the impressive levels of mouth-foam some people seemed to exhibit when Pathfinder made power attack binary, I think it was the right basic idea. "How much should I power attack for?", in the current system, is a question best answered with a spreadsheet. A binary or ternary system would be far more interesting, IMHO.

I'm not sure "binary" is the proper word.

Player: "I power attack with -5, what's my damage bonus?"
DM: *uses calculator* "Ummm a hundred and one."

[Morty]

There should be limiting factors that are imposed on spellcasters, such as applying only one metamagic per spell casting.

Those are specific feats. We're talking about the entire feat system.


I've always thought that feats like Power Attack, Combat Expertise and similar ones (like the one from Complete Psionics - I think it's called Reckless Attack?) should be combat maneuvers open to everyone, limited at most by BAB. Then, the Fighter could have as proper class features special abilities that enhanced those maneuvers in some way (for instance, when using Combat Expertise, add the AC bonus gained to all saves as well, things like that).

I agree. In fact, didn't Ziegander propose such a houserule at some point?

[nonsi]

Those are specific feats. We're talking about the entire feat system.


I did say "such as".
In general, spellcasters get better feats than martial classes, so there's got to be some kind of balancing factor.

[Raineh Daze]

Why would you look to a bad implementation of an idea in order to judge the value of the idea?

I wasn't doing any judging. I just said what it reminds me of. Judging would have involved actually saying it's a bad idea. :smallannoyed:

[Just to Browse]

I agree. In fact, didn't Ziegander propose such a houserule at some point?


As far as I know, he hasn't said anything about power attack, but did say that Combat Expertise and Reckless Assault (from Expanded Psionics) should be free (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10640962&postcount=6).


Weapon Finesse and Reckless Assault (XPH) are no longer feats. Instead, any character using a light and/or finessable weapon can choose their Dexterity to modify their attacks instead of Strength. Likewise, any character can choose to accept -4 to AC to gain +2 to attacks for 1 round.

[lesser_minion]

In general, spellcasters get better feats than martial classes, so there's got to be some kind of balancing factor.

Well, I'd hope that that is to be fixed, given that that's the whole point of this thread, even if we might have accidentally scared off our host.

That said, the back-of-an-envelope suggestions for ability tricks I posted earlier have the beginnings of a limiting factor built in.

[Carl]

At the same time, having any negative effect require an attack roll seems to be going too far in the opposite direction. Let alone if there's any AoE effects. Not everything is an attack. Also... honestly, that explanation makes no sense. If armour interfered with supernatural effects by default, you could never enchant it or weapons. Or much of anything else, since it must be a property of materials and not the shape. No magic items for anyone.

Where did i say everything should require an attack roll.

Also your point about magic items is moot. It already exists. How can any current arcane spellcaster ever produce a magic item since any armour material apparently interferes with their spellcasting?

The answer of course is rather simple. Your not targeting a person and trying to get through your own/their armour when you craft a magic item. Your targeting the item with the spell and due to the length of the crafting process you can take 20, (or more), on your concentration check.

[Bezzerker]

The armor interfering with spells only applies to spells that have intricate motions as part of the casting. That is also why divine casters don't suffer from spell chance failure, since (if I'm remembering correctly) none of the divine spells have motions needed to cast them.

It's not that the armor intrinsically interferes with spells, it's the limiting of a spell casters motion range that interferes with spells.

[Raineh Daze]

In addition to the above, the exact wording for the rationale behind it. (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Arcane_Spells_and_Armor) I suppose that if everything you cast is a stilled spell, you could go around as an arcane caster with more metal than an iron golem without trouble.

It's not the properties of the material itself, at least (mithral reduces ASF because it's lighter and easier to move in, for instance).

[Carl]

Ahh thanks for that, i was under the impression it was down to all that metal/fabric/whatever.

I agree that makes explaining it harder, but it doesn't change the basic fact. If your class gets heavy armour, (or medium, or even light, heavy is just more affected), use as a class feature or you spend the feat on it you should get the advantage of it. Right now one of the 3 primary branches of combat, (melee, Ranged, and magic), gets to treat armour as non-existent. Which just hugely devalues armour for everyone, it's just that those with a focus on the heavier types suffer more. Especially at higher levels where monsters capable of chucking spells about gets more common. What's the point of even having armour if it becomes so valueless.

[Ziegander]

So have the "ability tricks" be granted by the classes? So that a fighter and a barbarian can get different strength tricks?

Yep, that's sort of what I was thinking. Though a list of basic "tricks" for everyone would probably be good to have as well.


On thing you might do, I suppose, is have the crit have some extra effect, instead of just doing extra damage. So if you crit with a blunt weapon you get some sort of knockdown, a crit with a slashing weapon inflicts bleeding, I don't know.

I like this for when we're talking about weapon crits, definitely. I would love to see non-attack critical successes in the game as well. The Crafty system does this and it seems very interesting.


On bonuses: whilst types are nice, stacking really seems like something that should come from sources. :smallconfused:

What do you mean come from sources?


If your class gets heavy armour, (or medium, or even light, heavy is just more affected), use as a class feature or you spend the feat on it you should get the advantage of it. Right now one of the 3 primary branches of combat, (melee, Ranged, and magic), gets to treat armour as non-existent. Which just hugely devalues armour for everyone, it's just that those with a focus on the heavier types suffer more. Especially at higher levels where monsters capable of chucking spells about gets more common. What's the point of even having armour if it becomes so valueless.

One of the things I like about 5E is that it seems that all of the obvious damage dealing spells have to hit AC and do not ignore armor. A person in full plate is better protected against a Scorching Ray than a person in no armor in the 5th edition playtest. Which is a step in the right direction. Now having armor, by default, help to protect you against Charms or Illusions definitely doesn't make sense and doesn't seem like the way to go, but working defenses is certainly something that needs doing as far as this project is concerned. Mundane defenses need a massive overhaul, there's no doubt about it.

Don't worry, guys, you haven't scared me off. I may not have a lot of time each day to devote to this project, especially not during the week, but I'm still interested and involved. We're getting ahead of ourselves some, but that's alright. It's time for me to get to specific ability score analysis and some discussion about things we can do to possibly improve the ability score mechanics. That will be a new thread that I don't know when I'll have the time to write, but at least know that it will be coming soon.

[Raineh Daze]

I mean that whilst simplifying typing so that it's easier to work out what negates what in any given situation, that leads to situations such as being unable to obtain a magical boost because you're wearing armour, or benefit from the situation because you've got some nice tools.

So, whilst things from the same source shouldn't stack, it seems... weird to make it impossible to stack things of different origins because they share types. :smallconfused:

[Ziegander]

I mean that whilst simplifying typing so that it's easier to work out what negates what in any given situation, that leads to situations such as being unable to obtain a magical boost because you're wearing armour, or benefit from the situation because you've got some nice tools.

So, whilst things from the same source shouldn't stack, it seems... weird to make it impossible to stack things of different origins because they share types. :smallconfused:

The general idea is that modifier types and modifier sources are supposed to be roughly the same. What exactly is the difference between circumstance and luck? Between enhancement and resistance or sacred for that matter? There wouldn't be a situation where you couldn't get a buff because you're wearing armor because those two would be different modifier types. Circumstance and Item, being different types would likewise not have any conflict allowing you to benefit from favorable conditions as well as superior tools.

Narrowing the number of types likewise narrows down the number of "sources" a character is allowed to get bonuses/penalties from at once. It is simultaneously pruning out the chaff as well as reigning in the RNG.

[Just to Browse]

I think Raineh is getting more at the point having a single type of bonus stack with itself. If you get some armor, and then you add a force field that provides an item bonus, why are you no easier to hit than before? If you're lucky and then someone grants you magic luck, why are you no luckier than before? If your circumstances look good, and then someone grants you magic luck, why wouldn't those things stack?

[Grod_The_Giant]

I think Raineh is getting more at the point having a single type of bonus stack with itself. If you get some armor, and then you add a force field that provides an item bonus, why are you no easier to hit than before? If you're lucky and then someone grants you magic luck, why are you no luckier than before? If your circumstances look good, and then someone grants you magic luck, why wouldn't those things stack?
Modifier stacking is one of those things where no matter how you look at it, you run into arbitrary metagame limits. That being said, I much prefer M&M-style stacking-- where your total modifier is capped-- rather than D&D style "bonuses of the same type don't stack." It's a bit more arbitrary, but it's a lot more predictable and harder to break.

[Raineh Daze]

Modifier stacking is one of those things where no matter how you look at it, you run into arbitrary metagame limits. That being said, I much prefer M&M-style stacking-- where your total modifier is capped-- rather than D&D style "bonuses of the same type don't stack." It's a bit more arbitrary, but it's a lot more predictable and harder to break.

Fluff it as your experiences being insufficient to make full use of the full range of bonuses? Give a peasant the best armour ever created, they're still going to go down without the enemy breaking a sweat.

Makes more sense, to me at least, than arbitrary restrictions on type stacking.

[nonsi]

Yep, that's sort of what I was thinking. Though a list of basic "tricks" for everyone would probably be good to have as well.


I really hope we're not putting all this effort just to keep the Barbarian a class on its own.


EDIT:



I like this for when we're talking about weapon crits, definitely. I would love to see non-attack critical successes in the game as well. The Crafty system does this and it seems very interesting.

Do we really need the crit mechanic?
Why not simplify and streamline the gameflow (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249375)?

[Morty]

Critical successes are good both for verisimulitude and dramatic tension. One way or another, they should stay. Although personally, I think that "beating the DC by X or more" might be a better way of determining it than rolling a natural 20 and then confirming. It's less swingy and random this way. Of course, the two may coexist.

[nonsi]

Critical successes are good both for verisimulitude and dramatic tension.

I don't see how a (mostly) 1:20 chance for a big hit (which can actually turn out quite lame if you're unlucky with the damage dice) is a better verisimilitude than scoring more damage when you hit better (while rolling for the weapon's base damage serving as the randomality factor).
Also, if I can score a hit with my short sword when rolling an 8, then there are 12 values on the d20 that amount to a regular hit with zero tension.




One way or another, they should stay. Although personally, I think that "beating the DC by X or more" might be a better way of determining it than rolling a natural 20 and then confirming. It's less swingy and random this way. Of course, the two may coexist.

With this solution, sooner or later (probably sooner more often than later) more than 50% of the hits will be critical threats - which will definitely speed up the attack-roll arms race. I'm not sure this is something you'd want.

[Amechra]

I'm wondering... would it be a better idea to take M&M's base and then "build" 3E on top of that?

It seems like a better implementation of the idea...

[Morty]

I don't see how a (mostly) 1:20 chance for a big hit (which can actually turn out quite lame if you're unlucky with the damage dice) is a better verisimilitude than scoring more damage when you hit better (while rolling for the weapon's base damage serving as the randomality factor).
Also, if I can score a hit with my short sword when rolling an 8, then there are 12 values on the d20 that amount to a regular hit with zero tension.

You're using the assumptions of 3.5 D&D. Since this is a thread about rewriting it, they might no longer apply.



With this solution, sooner or later (probably sooner more often than later) more than 50% of the hits will be critical threats - which will definitely speed up the attack-roll arms race. I'm not sure this is something you'd want.

See above. In 3.5 D&D yes, this is probably true. In a system built around this assumption, not necessarily so.

[Seerow]

On partial successes, what if you had something like every 5 you beat the AC by, deal 1[W] extra damage? A natural 20 counts as +5, natural 1 counts as -5. It would end up working something like the early Final Fantasy games' hit systems, where there's some variation based on RNG, but hit-values (and thus damage values) generally fall within a certain range.

[nonsi]

You're using the assumptions of 3.5 D&D. Since this is a thread about rewriting it, they might no longer apply.



See above. In 3.5 D&D yes, this is probably true. In a system built around this assumption, not necessarily so.


Then it remains to be seen what Zieg. is cooking for us.
Without further info, one can only guess that 3.5e is at least a rough baseline for how things work. We can stray from it only so much without losing touch altogether.
As I said, remains to be seen.

[nonsi]

On partial successes, what if you had something like every 5 you beat the AC by, deal 1[W] extra damage? A natural 20 counts as +5, natural 1 counts as -5. It would end up working something like the early Final Fantasy games' hit systems, where there's some variation based on RNG, but hit-values (and thus damage values) generally fall within a certain range.

Pardon the question, but what is 1[W]?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Pardon the question, but what is 1[W]?
One weapon damage die-- 1d4 for a dagger, 1d8 for a longsword, 2d6 for a greatsword...


I'm wondering... would it be a better idea to take M&M's base and then "build" 3E on top of that?

It seems like a better implementation of the idea...
I think I've seen that before... (http://true20.com/) (OK, not exactly, but it is halfway between 3.5 and M&M)

It's an interesting idea. I suppose you'd work out race packets and class packets aimed at, say, PL 5, then provide suggestions and guidelines for how to spend the points after that? And suggestions for how to make your own custom character?

You'd have to do something about the exponential scaling, too. Strength in particular gets silly fast.

[JusticeZero]

On Hit Dice:
These are the single most highly cheated on dice in the gaming world, because they are so critical. If your front line meat tank rolls a couple of ones on this roll early on, you have to retire the character as useless. The Wizard wants good numbers, because there's a difference between "I need to be protected, because i'm squishy" and "I can't even safely be in the same room as the fight, because anything can hammer me down to -11 HP, even after I succeed on a save". By the time you get to endgame, things will revert to the mean, but in the meantime you are left with a character who isn't likely to GET to the endgame.
I give all Level 0 Commoners 4 HP, then you gain more HP when you level: Median round up per level. I give max HP at level 1 just to make level 1 characters less brittle. A level 2 fighter with 14 (+2) Con will have 24 HP every time. 4(level 0)+10(level 1)+6(level 2)+((2(Con))(2(second level)))
It makes things a lot easier.
That said, you could just give a flat HP/Level number for everything.

[Just to Browse]

Pardon the question, but what is 1[W]?

That thar be some farrrrth edition tarrrrminology.

Also, we really should keep keep critical success on a 20, because it's so iconic to the game.

[Morty]

Also, we really should keep keep critical success on a 20, because it's so iconic to the game.

Plenty of terrible things are iconic. I don't think it should be a valid criterium.

Mind you, I'm not saying that the idea of "degrees of success" and whatnot is the best thing since sliced bread, but we should consider the merits of various approaches instead of saying "X is iconic".

[Grod_The_Giant]

Plenty of terrible things are iconic. I don't think it should be a valid criterium.

Mind you, I'm not saying that the idea of "degrees of success" and whatnot is the best thing since sliced bread, but we should consider the merits of various approaches instead of saying "X is iconic".
True, but not having natural-20 rules would be like playing D&D with 3d6 instead of a d20. Sure, it works, but it wouldn't feel quite right.


It's an interesting idea. I suppose you'd work out race packets and class packets aimed at, say, PL 5, then provide suggestions and guidelines for how to spend the points after that? And suggestions for how to make your own custom character?
EDIT: Actually, thinking about this instead of paying attention in class, it might be better to simply provide lists of pre-built powers for various classes and iconic spells.

[thedarkstone]

Don't mind me, just paying attention to earlier points in the thread which were dropped that I wanted to have input on.


Modifiers: I see the advantage of adopting the suggestion made by JusttoBrowse, but it seems like an over simplification to me. I'm thinking more of categorizing the miscellaneous modifiers to:
1. "Physical"
2. "Magical"
3. "Morale"
4. "Circumstance"
Cross-Category bonuses stack while Inter-Categories bonuses overlap (except for armor & shield bonuses, which also stack). Sacred & Profane bonuses – each effect augments just one of "Physical"/"Magical"/"Morale"
Modifiers, perhaps, should have subcategories. Similar to how schools of spells also sometimes have subschools or types of effect. Type and subtype.

So, you keep the title for each modifier (sacred, innate, competence, etc.), but each ascribes to a category; think of it not as removing the additional modifiers, but rather, simplifying the stacking rule. So, for example, you might have a sacred bonus from paladin-ness and an enhancement bonus from a magic item. Both are magical in nature, and so would be considered (and written as) magical (sacred) and magical (enhancement).

This is probably a clarity thing more than anything else, but regardless.


Ability Scores: I don't see 6 ability scores as a sacred cow not to be touched.
- I'd like to see a clear separation between one's agility and their hand-eye coordination.
- Wisdom is just one's experience, so it's not really an attribute. Instead of Wis-Cha, I'd make them Willpower & Personality, making the latter irrelevant for spellcasting, but absolutely relevant for all social interactions.
- Another thing that's missing is one's overall gracefulness and looks. Appearance if you will. This one should affect first impression, but also things previously associated with luck (the higher your “Appearance” is, the less clumsy you are).
- Last comes one’s innate ability to perceive details. This could affect all perception skills, but also initiative, illusion & compulsion resistance and how hard it is to surprise you.
So, this leads to the following result:
- Strength
- Dexterity (modifies Ref saves)
- Agility
- Constitution (modifies Fort saves)
- Intelligence
- Perception
- Willpower (modifies Will saves)
- Personality
- Appearance
I’m not focusing on balance between the abilities ATM, but more on what feels right to me as one’s innate traits.
Ever heard of Skills and Powers for AD&D? I think using it as a standard resource, inspiration for 3.fix, would be potentially a good idea.



I'm not following your logic. That's not a good reason by itself for why dodge bonuses should be kept. Those rules situations can be altered later. As I mentioned before, we shouldn't let the existence of rules far ahead of us stop us from making improvements to the rules directly in front of us.
Okay. So, the above is a fix to that. Sub-dodge would have circumstances it did not apply; that doesn't change the fact that it is a sub of one of the overarching types and doesn't stack with others of that overarching type. It's really just a sorting fix.


Let me see if I'm following your train of thought correctly: There are two characters who both have Str 20, but one of them has the Epic Wrestler feat and the other doesn't. Neither character is considered to be superhuman in any respects, except when the one character grapples things.

And now for another example: There are two characters who both have Str 30, but one of them has the Epic Lifting feat and the other doesn't. Neither character is considered to be superhuman in any respects, except when the one character wants to pick something up. Then he can perform such feats of strength as lifting giants over his head. But he doesn't hit and harder than the other character, he doesn't break objects any easier, and he hurls an axe at the same distance he hurls a lifted giant.

Are my examples fair comparisons to what you're saying? Do you think that no character should be considered superhuman without first obtaining some sort of superhuman ability? I would find it very odd that two characters have the same ability score but only one of them can do something special because of it, and even more odd that someone capable of one specific superhuman feat is not capable of other, more general, and seemingly related superhuman feats.

...

Ah, now that's an interesting change of tune from you. Trust me, I would definitely want characters that have superhuman attributes to be able to do cool things with them, but I'm not sure that capping them without first gaining the Epic Attribute feat is a good idea. However, I don't dismiss the idea out of hand, it may have more merit than I'm seeing at the moment.
I think maybe we should split ability scores into the components, similarly to how AD&D 2E did in S&P, as stated above. The ability scores were split into two parts, based on logical function. I like that idea; except, you maintain the original score, you have two sub-scores that have to be within a certain range, and it really isn't any more tedium for a new player to learn, I think.

In case you couldn't tell, I'm a big fan of sub-organization.

[Ashtagon]

Ever heard of Skills and Powers for AD&D? I think using it as a standard resource, inspiration for 3.fix, would be potentially a good idea.

That book (and the other two that made up the set) are widely regarded among 2e circles as among the most game-breaking in the edition. I wouldn't use them as an example of good game design.

[thedarkstone]

That book (and the other two that made up the set) are widely regarded among 2e circles as among the most game-breaking in the edition. I wouldn't use them as an example of good game design.
Well, I suppose I mean ideologically. Not the way they built it, allowing for easily broken characters. I meant more the split ability scores than anything else, I suppose. I forgot about the breakable potential; I've only used S&P itself twice, though the ability score splitting I've used many more times.

[Raineh Daze]

Too many subcategories for things would make bookkeeping and balancing a nightmare.

[thedarkstone]

Too many subcategories for things would make bookkeeping and balancing a nightmare.
True, but not subcategories within subcategories. Just the two halves of each ability score, split logically, and a larger group to which all current modifiers ascribe to.

[nonsi]

Also, we really should keep keep critical success on a 20, because it's so iconic to the game.

So are Gate, Shapechange & Wish.
Between nostalgia and a better game, I'd choose the latter over the former.

Oh, and critical success on a 20 was core only since 3e (it was probably invented in 3e, but I didn't keep much track of optional rules before that so I can't tell for sure).

[Grod_The_Giant]

So are Gate, Shapechange & Wish.
Between nostalgia and a better game, I'd choose the latter over the former.
True... but at what point does a revision stop being D&D? That's an important question to ask. There are a thousand thousand systems out there, many of them quite capable of running D&D-style games: M&M, Fate, Savage Worlds, Burning Wheel... Clearly there are reasons why we still play D&D despite the many issues the system has. Any kind of systematic revision needs to identify what, in the eyes of the designers, at least, is essential for the D&D "feel." If you let go of that, you may as well start game design from scratch-- not a bad thing, but a different thing.

I submit that the excitement of a critical hit is one of those things. So are classes, having big lists of options to pour through, rolling lots of dice of many types, and hit points.

[Raineh Daze]

Redefine what a critical is so that it isn't at risk of being less damage than a normal roll? 1.5x maximum rollable damage or something?

[nonsi]

Don't mind me, just paying attention to earlier points in the thread which were dropped that I wanted to have input on.


Modifiers, perhaps, should have subcategories. Similar to how schools of spells also sometimes have subschools or types of effect. Type and subtype.

So, you keep the title for each modifier (sacred, innate, competence, etc.), but each ascribes to a category; think of it not as removing the additional modifiers, but rather, simplifying the stacking rule. So, for example, you might have a sacred bonus from paladin-ness and an enhancement bonus from a magic item. Both are magical in nature, and so would be considered (and written as) magical (sacred) and magical (enhancement).

This is probably a clarity thing more than anything else, but regardless.


Ever heard of Skills and Powers for AD&D? I think using it as a standard resource, inspiration for 3.fix, would be potentially a good idea.


Okay. So, the above is a fix to that. Sub-dodge would have circumstances it did not apply; that doesn't change the fact that it is a sub of one of the overarching types and doesn't stack with others of that overarching type. It's really just a sorting fix.


I think maybe we should split ability scores into the components, similarly to how AD&D 2E did in S&P, as stated above. The ability scores were split into two parts, based on logical function. I like that idea; except, you maintain the original score, you have two sub-scores that have to be within a certain range, and it really isn't any more tedium for a new player to learn, I think.

In case you couldn't tell, I'm a big fan of sub-organization.

I'm not against subabilities as a concept, but when I saw the S&P execution some of them seemed intuitive while others seemed artificial (Intuition vs. Willpower in particular).

My biggest problem with subabilities is the "within a certain range" part, as well as the fact that it was obvious which part you'd wanna raise at the expense of the other.
I saw this TV show hosted by Stan Lee a few months ago, where he was searching for people with extraordinary abilities.
One of them was a middle-aged bow marksman. The man just hit everything on a first attempt - every time... including an aspirin pill thrown into the air (talk about dexterity). OTOH, from his body mass and the way he moved about, it was obvious this guy couldn't jump 5-inches off the ground to save his life (this is as un-agile as a human ever gets without being cripple).

[Just to Browse]

So are Gate, Shapechange & Wish.
Between nostalgia and a better game, I'd choose the latter over the former.

Oh, and critical success on a 20 was core only since 3e (it was probably invented in 3e, but I didn't keep much track of optional rules before that so I can't tell for sure).

No, those are really not iconic. Ability scores are iconic, BAB is iconic, dragons are iconic.

But wish? Out of all my years in D&D I've seen wish used once. Genies that grant wish could be, and so could shapechanging, and so are calling effects and portals to other worlds, but those spells are by no means iconic to the game and can be stripped, rewritten, or entirely thrown away if necessary.

[thedarkstone]

Redefine what a critical is so that it isn't at risk of being less damage than a normal roll? 1.5x maximum rollable damage or something?
I preferred the additional effect idea from earlier; bludgeoning is a knockback, slashing is a bleed, maybe, fire spells critting would light someone on fire, etc.


I'm not against subabilities as a concept, but when I saw the S&P execution some of them seemed intuitive while others seemed artificial (Intuition vs. Willpower in particular).

My biggest problem with subabilities is the "within a certain range" part, as well as the fact that it was obvious which part you'd wanna raise at the expense of the other.
I saw this TV show hosted by Stan Lee a few months ago, where he was searching for people with extraordinary abilities.
One of them was a middle-aged bow marksman. The man just hit everything on a first attempt - every time... including an aspirin pill thrown into the air (talk about dexterity). OTOH, from his body mass and the way he moved about, it was obvious this guy couldn't jump 5-inches off the ground to save his life (this is as un-agile as a human ever gets without being cripple).
That is certainly true. A bit of it is artificial; we would be making sure that doesn't happen, though, in this case.

Also, those are extremes we're not likely to see often; they're on Stan Lee's Superhumans for a reason. In D&D, that'd be a case of a lenient DM. Or extreme min-maxing, at least.

[Tarvon000]

The man just hit everything on a first attempt - every time... including an aspirin pill thrown into the air (talk about dexterity). OTOH, from his body mass and the way he moved about, it was obvious this guy couldn't jump 5-inches off the ground to save his life (this is as un-agile as a human ever gets without being cripple).

But . . . I thought jumping was Strength-based! :smalltongue:


I preferred the additional effect idea from earlier; bludgeoning is a knockback, slashing is a bleed, maybe, fire spells critting would light someone on fire, etc.

Or maybe use the Critical feats from Pathfinder?