PDA

View Full Version : Original System Working on a d20 system. Curious what you think.



antymattar
2015-11-14, 02:08 PM
Hi everyone!

A while ago I started working on a d20-esque system based off of pathfinder. Currently the main differences is that everyone has "reactions" each round(usually one per round) which they can spend to react during someone else's turn. This also molds together with attacks of opportunity, which are now just attacks made during a reaction. There's also contested action, which are usually reactions where the entity providing the DC check for a d20 roll is allowed to make a d20 roll to generate a secondary DC check and impose results if it is not met.
As well as changes to the way armor works(there are 4 armor classes - dodge, block, armor, staggered(basically flatfooted)). If an attack roll is below dodge, it misses. Below block - it is blocked. Below armor, the attack hits, but is reduced by the DR inherent in the armor. There's also a few other small things, such as every ability score offering a save etc.

One of the driving ideas for classes, levels and the way that the game should work was the idea that every time the character grows in some way, he is not just granted a mere stat increase, but a new tool to work with. So warriors would gain lore about monsters and new maneuvers with weapons, rangers would gain actual survival abilities, spells or spell slots will not usually run out(and will thus be appropriated for the purposes of balance. yes, Its a big task to do. ) and each aspect of magic should be more unique(and we are also ditching a big part of the "school of wizardry" crap that causes a lot of botheration). If a character gains the ability to speak to birds, he will speak to birds permanently, not just for 1 hour a day.

So here's one of the big things I currently need some advice on. We(me and a few co-designers) are planning on removing BAB, CMB and CMD from the game. BAB will be incorporated into weapon/attack training and mastery, as it should show that a players choices to ignore weapons and weapon training should be apparent in the game. This is simple, all sword attacks get a +x to attack with, yada yada.

BUT what to do with CMB and CMD... One idea was to make them simply make them DEX, STR and CON based (roll against a DC of 10+DEX modifier + misc to make the combat maneuver work.) while another was to make it a skillcheck, like acromatics or the like. But these options don't quite sound satisfactory.

I'm wondering, if any of you know some great examples of combat maneuver systems and maneuvers in general in tabletop RPGs? Also, feel free to critique some of the ideas about the system.

thanks.

CharonsHelper
2015-11-24, 12:51 PM
Interesting ideas - and in a video game etc. they'd probably work quite well.

In a tabletop game though - I think that you're breaking KISS too hard. d20 - especially Pathfinder - is already a pretty crunchy system. Adding more rules - especially messing with the initiative system - is going to clog up gameplay.

The general rule is that depth is good - complexity is bad. Depth is something that you purchase with complexity as the currency. So a lot of game design is figuring out what sort of depth you want - and then trying to get the best 'complexity' bargain for it.

Your whole initiative system is intriguing - and it would add some depth. But I think it's a very poor bargain for the amount of complexity it would add.

As to armor = DR - that can certainly work, and I like it as a core mechanic. But you'll have to rebalance the game around it from the ground up. You can't just slap it on top of Pathfinder and expect it to work well. It punishes multiple smaller attacks and rewards fewer more potent ones. It also drastically changes CR for different foes.

If you make armor = DR, I'd suggest to either drop or drastically reduce BAB to compensate, perhaps increasing inherent damage instead. Perhaps make rolls of '20' ignore armor to keep characters with high armor being immune to lesser attacks entirely much like the auto-hit does for very high AC characters. *shrug*

Bruno Carvalho
2015-11-24, 01:23 PM
I second everything CharonsHelper said.

Debihuman
2015-11-24, 05:20 PM
I suggest you look at the original SRD rather than Pathfinder. That might be helpful.

antymattar
2015-11-25, 03:28 PM
Interesting ideas - and in a video game etc. they'd probably work quite well.

In a tabletop game though - I think that you're breaking KISS too hard. d20 - especially Pathfinder - is already a pretty crunchy system. Adding more rules - especially messing with the initiative system - is going to clog up gameplay.

The general rule is that depth is good - complexity is bad. Depth is something that you purchase with complexity as the currency. So a lot of game design is figuring out what sort of depth you want - and then trying to get the best 'complexity' bargain for it.

Your whole initiative system is intriguing - and it would add some depth. But I think it's a very poor bargain for the amount of complexity it would add.

As to armor = DR - that can certainly work, and I like it as a core mechanic. But you'll have to rebalance the game around it from the ground up. You can't just slap it on top of Pathfinder and expect it to work well. It punishes multiple smaller attacks and rewards fewer more potent ones. It also drastically changes CR for different foes.

If you make armor = DR, I'd suggest to either drop or drastically reduce BAB to compensate, perhaps increasing inherent damage instead. Perhaps make rolls of '20' ignore armor to keep characters with high armor being immune to lesser attacks entirely much like the auto-hit does for very high AC characters. *shrug*
Finally, a reply! :D

The idea is that, with the help of a few intuitive ways of laying out information, it should not be more complex than pathfinder(and in fact, sometimes it seems to be slightly simpler or more intuitive. Though some areas really need work still.) I agree with you on the whole ground-up re-balancing and that's kind of why I wanted to know what to do with the infinitely scaling stats. Which is a problem from a balance perspective, as it pretty much removes any anchor point for the characters power level. Whereas previously you would have situations where THACO or BAB or TO-HIT would gradually but steadily increase and give a sort of comparison point for the power of characters, now that seems to disappear. That's what I'm currently trying to fix.

The problem with CMD and CMB was that it seemed really strange. The difference between out-wrestling someone and dodging a roundhouse kick is huge. Just like the difference between doing a cartwheel and a perfect dive. Should I divide the maneuvers into groups of finesse, strength and balance or should I just keep the single abstract stat. These kind of questions. Currently CMD and CMB is largely static unless invested in via traits/feats(which now are granted each level. Idea was to make them matter more. Basically, a level is a new ability that allows a character to do something unique in a big way, a feat is a new minor change or option. A trait is just a stat increase.) but normally are just the characters STR + his DEX.

The initiative thing is not so much of a problem, as reactions have to be provoked. Failing an attack, walking near someone, attacking someone in range etc. These things provoke reactions. Some people with fast reflexes might be allowed to react to more things or to more specific things.

As for the multiple attacks/a single attack. Yes, while that is true, it is also not that terrible. Two weapon fighting has been buffed since shields are now more important too. And another feature is that weapon familiarity allows someone to perform certain maneuvers with weapons based on how familiar they are with using them(unfamiliar, familiar, proficient, master) so while a fool with no skills with a rapier may hold it as though it were just basically sharp stick, the master would be able to parry attacks, disarm opponents(now goes into weapon based maneuvers) and so on. I'm open to critique on this.

Currently idea is that a certain bonus-to-hit an be made with a simple attack, while a full round attack allows the wielder to use all his available attacks(primary and secondary) while gaining a lesser bonus to hit. What this bonus should be is yet to be decided, though mastery goes in there somewhere.



I suggest you look at the original SRD rather than Pathfinder. That might be helpful.
I've looked at it but I'm not sure I understand what you mean? Like, it's not THAT different... or am I missing something?

CharonsHelper
2015-11-25, 03:57 PM
The initiative thing is not so much of a problem, as reactions have to be provoked. Failing an attack, walking near someone, attacking someone in range etc. These things provoke reactions. Some people with fast reflexes might be allowed to react to more things or to more specific things.

That doesn't sound much different than AOOs except that you're expanding what provokes them. It sounded much more in-depth & complicated in your OP.


As for the multiple attacks/a single attack. Yes, while that is true, it is also not that terrible. Two weapon fighting has been buffed since shields are now more important too.

Why are they more important? If you just change Pathfinder/D&D to DR without changing much - everyone but monks will be hit on 2+ by virtually everything whether or not they have a shield. That would make shields far less valuable, as any AC (or whatever you call passive defense to keep from getting hit) they give is a drop in the bucket vs. opposing offenses.

antymattar
2015-11-25, 04:14 PM
That doesn't sound much different than AOOs except that you're expanding what provokes them. It sounded much more in-depth & complicated in your OP.



Why are they more important? If you just change Pathfinder/D&D to DR without changing much - everyone but monks will be hit on 2+ by virtually everything whether or not they have a shield. That would make shields far less valuable, as any AC (or whatever you call passive defense to keep from getting hit) they give is a drop in the bucket vs. opposing offenses.

Well originally I ruled that many reactions would be up to the DM's discretion, where simply saying that you decide to attack out of order cant be done whenever, whereas moving, dropping and using items can. I guess what I mean to say is that doing something like jumping in front of a projectile is always allowed, moving slightly is always allowed, doing something to oppose someones action nearby is always allowed as long as it's a contested action, but attacking someone, doing a maneuver or using most items/spells whenever you wish outside of your turn is not unless provoked. If it's not an attack, you can use your reactions on it whenever. I'm not always the best with words, sorry.

Well a shield still blocks ALL damage. This means that large heavy shields and tower shields are now more than just a +2(or +4 with the tower shield) to AC. That, plus enchanted shields now actually have a trigger so you can have shields that do something when hit, and you would actually know when they are hit. But point taken anyway. That, plus you can dual wield shields if you want XD and it's slightly more viable.