How would you do D&D 6th Edition? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

AOKost

2017-02-15, 09:14 AM

I would love for the game to keep most of the 3.PF rules, but switch to a much more fluid system for character advancement. I currently play a homebrew system that I found and modified myself called Custom Characters. The system breaks all known classes down into it's 'base' special abilities that can be 'purchased' with experience piecemeal. All aspects of characters are expanded using experience as the 'currency' to learn or improve anything. Experience is used for BAB, HP, Skills, Learning Magic and Psionics, Saves, etc. It's a lot of bookkeeping, but it offers virtually unlimited character customization.

My changes to the system I found are primarily around altering how magic is purchased and spell level progression in the beginning. I assigned the learning of Magic and how to cast spells to the Spellcraft skill, and included sub-skills for each School. I did the same for Psionics. The level of spell or power that can be cast or manifest is determined by the Spellcraft or Psicraft ranks put into it divided in half. So a character wouldn't even have access to 1st level spells until they were effectively 2nd level.

Levels are determined by the highest of any: BAB, Save, Skill, Ability Score increase purchase, Special Ability purchase, HP Purchase, Spell Point Purchase (I happen to love spell points as opposed to spell slots...), Power Point Purchase, etc. Feats can be purchased as long as the character meets the prerequisites for the feat. There is no limit to feats learn-able in this system.

I always have all party members in a new group to start off as commoners with 90 points to distribute in their ability score (as long as no ability score is above 18 BEFORE racial modifiers) 6 + Con Mod HP, 6 + Int Mod Skill Points, Simple Weapon Proficiency, a Club, Explorers Outfit, Backpack, 50' of Hemp Rope, 3 Torches, a Waterskin, Flint and Tender, and Trail Rations for 5 days. That's about it. If they survive their first adventure, then they come back with experience and money, both of which they can spend to learn something or improve themselves somehow because in my modifications, I make learning something cost the same in gold as Experience.

This system has always always gone well with groups I introduce it to. It takes then a little while to get used to the concept of purchasing things with experience instead of just leveling up and getting things automatically, but also offers a much more story driven environment as to how characters come by the skills and feats they learn.

Morphic tide

2017-02-15, 09:57 AM

Well, if I had access to such power, I'd be bootstrapping as many things from D&D past into it, and have 30 level progressions for the classes from the start for the sole purpose of being able to nerf casters by making them 2/3rds casters by 3.PF standards. This would allow one to get casters almost the scale of power they had in 3.5 on a per-spell basis, but it takes them longer to reach.

I'd balance primary casters by giving parts of the game that casters are intentionally kept away from the tools to handle personally, giving martials places to shine. I'd also do my very best to make sure that counters the kingdom/continent screwing stuff casters get that are "classic" built into the official settings and campaign modules.

I'd bring out rules for stuff that's been lost to D&D and rules to make things possible that weren't previously. Social combat rules that act as an optional, high-complexity alternative to Gather Information, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff and Sense Motive and simplified combat for both normal and social to either shift focus away or streamline the gameplay, allowing you to focus on the other or do much larger "scale" things, just to start with. Then proper strategy gaming rules, allowing the players to lead armies into battle if they want to, tying into simplified combat and a form of mass combat.

Djinn_in_Tonic

2017-02-15, 10:44 AM

I feel keeping the class system is important to retaining the "feel" of D&D, so I'd definitely make sure that sticks around.

Vancian casting I'm less sold on. A mechanic I've been debating recently is a "soft Vancian" style based on the 5e Warlock. It grants spells in a fashion that resembles this: 1 [2], where the first number is spells of that level per short rest, and the second is additional spells per long rest. This means there's still some resource management for spellcasters, but there's also not as much fear of running out of resources after a single fight. I think this might be a nice balance between the two that keeps some of the traditional D&D feel without making it entirely a game of strategic rest breaks.

Unsure on some other points. I like the idea of bounded accuracy and advantage, but I'm not sure they deliver as much as they could. Casters also took a much-needed nerf, yet don't feel as fun to play as they used to due, in large part, to the inability to combine spells because of Concentration. I'd want to see if that's something that can be resolved by putting more power into non-casters.

Seerow

2017-02-15, 11:14 AM

If I were designing 6e it would most closely resemble a hybrid of 3e and 4e.

The core of the system would be basically:
-30 levels divided into explicit tiers (Heroic/Paragon/Epic).Crossing into a new tier creates a noticable tonal change in the game (moving further away from low level mundanity towards super heroics)

-Classes are grouped into distinct power sources, with each power source having a unique resource mechanic. For example Arcane with Spell Slots and Psionics with Power Points. Martial would end up with some sort of Stamina mechanic.

-All characters have a pool of "Essence" that enables their more supernatural abilities. Supernatural classes can invest Essence into their class features. All characters can invest essence into magic items to gain bonus effects from them. At higher tiers even Munane characters can invest Essence into certain skills and feats to get access to superheroic effects.

Deleted

2017-02-15, 12:38 PM

A thought exercise I've been thinking about for while. How would you, the Playground, design the next edition of D&D? Would you keep bounded accuracy? Vancian casting and spell slots? Would you try to make casters less powerful, or change the base classes? Heck, would you keep the class system or replace it?

Waiting with great interest to hear people's thoughts. :smallsmile:

Less 6e and more 5.75

General Changes
Make each class gain their subclass at 2, then give all classes consistent subclass features at something like 5, 10, 15, and 20.

Make multiclassing about gaining a special subclass at level 2 and then taking subclass features from other classes at 5, 10, 15, and 20.

Expand subclass options in the PHB, seriously, pretty weak in the 5e PHB.

Spells
Spells are always a saving throw. No attack rolls and no ability checks.

Saving Throws

There are too many saving throws and not enough proficiency. Also you get worse at saving throws as you gain levels (unless you focus on that saving throw).

Go back to 3.5 Fort, Ref, Will but add in some 4e by allowing you to take the better of two modifiers.

Fort: Str or Con
Ref: Dex or Int
Will: Wis or Cha

This gives build flexibility.

Armor Class/Armor

Light and Heavy armor are mostly fine. But medium armor should be Str or Dex (but keep the caps).

Martial Classes

Make them dynamic and more than 3 levels long.

Casters
Bards: Should use songs that manipulate the emotions of arcane energies. Concentration should be based on Dexterity (Performance) if using an instrument or Charisma (Performance) if singing. Switch up a few rules and everything.

Warlocks: Should just be Sorcerers who have a specific origin. Pact Magic should just be "innate spells" which is what attracted your patron to you.

Wizard: Wizard spell lists don't exist. Give us a series of options that allow us to make our own spells. If you want a spell list given to you, then play a divine or pact caster.

This could allow you to make Fire Ball or an Acid Ball as your third level spell.

Once you make a spell it takes a while to deconstruct it and make a new one.

You have a few different lists you can take options from to make your spells.

Give an actual mechanic for deciphering spells and making them your own.

Martials

All: Give them dynamic options and allow them to "break rules" like your casters can. However, keep them consistent with each other. The Fighter shouldn't gain more attacks AND more attacks AND more attacks... That's boring.

Dynamic options and cool things. The Rogue is a good example of a martial... though they eventually stop growing so... Yeah...Only mostly.

Edit====

Oh, if you are going to have a vague skill system, don't half donkey it, full donkey it.

13th Age's skill system.

Or expand your skill system and make a point based system again.

Oh, and Expertise? If you keep 5e's skill system? No, don't double prof, that's broken. Have it be advantage on the roll.

Ursus Spelaeus

2017-02-17, 08:43 AM

AOKost

2017-02-19, 08:50 AM

The following things exist (in one form or another) in every edition of D&D, and are generally agreed upon to be quintessentially D&D.

Six ability scores (STR, WIS, INT, CON, DEX, CHA) rated 3~18.
Levels and experience points
Classes, including at least fighters, magic users, and clerics (OD&D had only those three until thieves, paladins, monks, assassins, and druids were added in the supplements.)
Spells as a resource replenished by rest
Hit points as an abstract measure of vitality depleted by attacks
d20 rolls for attacks and saves
Psionics as a weird edge case found in appendices or supplements
The idea of alignment (was just chaotic, neutral, and lawful until AD&D.)
Gold pieces and the idea of buying equipment
+1 weapons and armor, the idea of magic items
Separate rolls for damage (variable damage dice optional; OD&D used only d6's for damage)
Monsters you can kill for XP and treasure, including goblins, kobolds, and color-coded dragons
Deities as really powerful monsters you can kill for XP and treasure
Random encounter tables
Dungeons you can map out and explore
The idea of traps
The possibility of naval and aerial combat
The possibility of attracting followers and building a stronghold
The possibility of planar travel

A game must have all of these components to be called D&D.

I greatly appreciate everything that you've mentioned with a few critiques:

Some variant system rules I've found use Luck (Green Ronin's Advanced series of books) and Beauty/appearance (specifically The Book Of Erotic Fantasy), and I personally really like those variations. Also, I like giving a set number of points for ability distribution. I go with 90 for the standard 6 Ability Scores instead of rolling 3d6 to determine their outcome. Some feel this is way to generous, but most player's I've played with really appreciate it.

I feel that classes should be outed all together, and a pick and choose or, better yet a 'purchasing' system using experience as the currency from a pool of special 'class' abilities is a better option. This would allow characters to have skills and abilities of virtually any class. This isn't a bad thing.

I really prefer the idea of Spell Points, used just like Power Points, and spells that can be used as long as you've the points to be able to cast any particular spell. This adds much more variety and spell access. Spells should NOT be broken into specific classes (such as healing spells being solely Divine)

There should be mundane equivalents to magical weapons and armor that very high level smiths can make, making taking more than a few points in a craft make more sense. Maybe magic and these mundane bonuses should stack. After all, magic IS supposed to enhance the mundane... I never appreciated how a magic bonus superseded Masterwork bonuses instead of stacking with them. There should also be more special qualities to add to mundane equipment, easily found in one supplement. I've scoured the net and books or such qualities many times before.

There will never be a perfect system, as all systems will have their flaws depending on whom you ask, but these critiques would be very useful.

Ursus Spelaeus

2017-02-19, 09:13 AM

I feel that classes should be outed all together, and a pick and choose or, better yet a 'purchasing' system using experience as the currency from a pool of special 'class' abilities is a better option. This would allow characters to have skills and abilities of virtually any class. This isn't a bad thing.

The problem is that you're no longer playing D&D anymore with that system. That's what I'm saying.

Regardless of whether you consider it to be good game design or not, there are certain tropes and conventions that people expect from D&D. If you stray from that formula too much, the fans will riot. Just look at how people reacted to 4E; that wasn't even as far removed from D&D as the changes you are proposing, and we got mass forum bannings, death threats, and even a murder-suicide out of that. WotC had to shut down their own forums because of all the backlash, and even they didn't go so far as to ditch classes or daily spells.

Deleted

2017-02-19, 10:07 AM

The problem is that you're no longer playing D&D anymore with that system. That's what I'm saying.

Regardless of whether you consider it to be good game design or not, there are certain tropes and conventions that people expect from D&D. If you stray from that formula too much, the fans will riot. Just look at how people reacted to 4E; that wasn't even as far removed from D&D as the changes you are proposing, and we got mass forum bannings, death threats, and even a murder-suicide out of that. WotC had to shut down their own forums because of all the backlash, and even they didn't go so far as to ditch classes or daily spells.

You could totally do a "Build a martial" or "build a caster" and have it still be D&D.

I started with 2e and that's what that felt like. You rolled your scores and you wanted to play a martial and got good rolls... You could instead choose a branch of the fighter instead of the fighter. (On a macro scale and not micro scale)

There is many reason people reacted to 4e the way they did. The look, the attitude of wotc (they went full donkey), and other little minor things. A lot of people loved things about 4e and while book sales eventually stopped doing as well, the online subscription for the character builder was very popular. When I went away from "3e-er" websites (like this one) I saw and heard nothing but great things about 4e, almost all the hate comes from a vocal minority.

But, none of those are reasons they shut down their forums lol. Hosting forums made no sense on the business side because other sites (like this one) was doing it for them. The only reason they kept them around for so long was because they got grandfathered in. 5e's new business model is what killed the WotC forums (do as little as possible and let others do the rest for free). Why do you think they started promoting DMs guild? Let others make stuff so wotc doesnt have to pay for it.

Anyways...

You can change D&D a lot actually, as long as it "looks" like D&D. 3.5 splat has taught us that.

So many people love those splat books.

So many people that I played 3e and 5e with, or talk online, say "I want a system that does X" and 4e does X, but then they say it doesn't look like D&D... Hell a lot of 5e ideology and stuff is based on 4e, it just looks 5e :p. Fix the Barbarian and Fighter and tweak the rogue and you are playing 4e that looks 3e (even without those changes, you are playing Essentials that looks 3e).

Raised floor, lowered ceiling and all that jazz.

Killdread

2017-02-19, 11:18 AM

Well first I'd bring back THAC0...

But seriously, this is a difficult thing to answer satisfactorily for a few reasons, but i won't go into that right now.

The first thing would definitely be keeping the 6 basic scores and the class system, the second thing would probably be bringing back class requirements, so you can't have cheesed out 3 int "wizards" casting from their wisdom score or anything of that ludicrous nature, I'd probably link the type of HD you have directly to your race with the actual amount being based on your CON score, additionally i'd make it so that the non-magical classes have some kind of ability that can (probably situationally) do damage or have effects similar to that of spells (likely based on the weapon being used) and would have uses that are specifically far better than spells would be, further i would likely switch Arcane to a build a spell semi-Vancian system with a limited number of spells per day a limited total number of known spell parts and a limited amount of spell parts that can be put together into one spell all dependent on class and level, Divine magic would have a limited spell list based on their particular deity, Druidic magic would be familiar based with different spell lists and progression for different animal companions, Psionics would probably end up as a gigantic mess like it always does because i don't even know where to start with making it fit, and overall it would probably greatly resemble a somewhat less broken 3.5.

2D8HP

2017-02-19, 12:22 PM

Deleted

2017-02-19, 01:25 PM

To me it seems a very fun game and there's very little I would change about the
free BASIC RULES FOR DUNGEONS & DRAGONS (http://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop/players-basic-rules) at all.

There is however a bunch of content in the PHB that I mostly ignore, thaf I wouldn't mind (or probably notice) if it was changed as long as I'm not forced to.

Most changes that people seem to want (not so much in this thread but in others), seem to add complexity and I'm against them.

For what it's worth I played a lot of RPG's in the 1970's and 80's, but I never had as much fun as I had playing '70's rules D&D until I played 5e.

What I would change (if I could) would be the weird (to me) focus other players have on how optimal my build is.

YES I KNOW THAT MY PC'S INT IS HIGHER THAN DEX, YES I'D RATHER PLAY A ROGUE THAN A WIZARD, PLEASE JUST LET ME PLAY THE CHARACTER I WANT TO PLAY ALREADY, THANK YOU!

The call for complexity is because that when you have simple and complex rules, everyone gets what they want. You can have your simplicity in your character or your game but others get their complexity in their character or in their game.

This is the same issue you have with other people caring about how optimal your character is. Just change optimal with complexity. If we are playing a game, how complex my character is, is none of your business just like how optimal your character is none of my business.

Casters are already complex, letting martials have the option of complexity doesn't stop anyone from playing the character they want.

Killdread

2017-02-19, 01:41 PM

. If we are playing a game, how complex my character is, is none of your business just like how optimal your character is none of my business.

I agree with the sentiment, though it isn't entirely true, complexity can pretty easily lead to slowing the game down which can lead to a reduction of fun.

Cluedrew

2017-02-19, 01:44 PM

Not sure exactly how I would do it but these would be my goals:
Fix martial/caster.
Keep the structured class system, but at the same time give some way to adjust and mix them.
Let every class benefit from every one of the 6 states.
Add proper social interaction rules.
Speed up combat.
There are a few others I would consider, but I think that is as much as I can do while still keeping it D&D. I don't think "make combat an optional skill" would really work in that context.

Deleted

2017-02-19, 01:48 PM

I agree with the sentiment, though it isn't entirely true, complexity can pretty easily lead to slowing the game down which can lead to a reduction of fun.

So can optimization.

As in, if your character isn't optimize enough and has to be supported by the party. If you can't keep up, that slows down the game.

Wizards, Clerics, and Sorcerers are already quite complex, adding complexity to other classes that don't have it (mainly martials) won't slow down the game any more than it already is.

The issue isn't class complexity in this regard, it is mostly ill prepared players going above their own head... Like a new player trying to play a class such as the wizard and holding back the entire group due to indecision.

edit====

Not sure exactly how I would do it but these would be my goals:
Fix martial/caster.
Keep the structured class system, but at the same time give some way to adjust and mix them.
Let every class benefit from every one of the 6 states.
Add proper social interaction rules.
Speed up combat.
There are a few others I would consider, but I think that is as much as I can do while still keeping it D&D. I don't think "make combat an optional skill" would really work in that context.

Martials just need options. They don't need to equal casters, they just need to not be so pigeonheld into specific paths.

Put all subclasses on the same level and let you take any subclass from any class (if you meet some requirements). Make subclasses change your class's innate features.

Combat is already fast in 5e. Combat is actually too fast. The combat that 5e wants you to do makes it feel like... Hurry up and get it over with. Combat is the primary thing that 5e gives you rules for and yet it wants you to not be in combat... I rather have a few average length combats per session than a bunch of mini combats, that makes it feel like you are just mindlessly grinding.

Cluedrew

2017-02-19, 04:40 PM

Deepbluediver

2017-02-19, 08:54 PM

Martials just need options. They don't need to equal casters, they just need to not be so pigeonheld into specific paths.
Agreed- for this I personally like to take inspiration from videogames. Stuff like MMORPGs and MOBAs have tons of melee-centric heroes with awesome abilities that you could borrow outright steal from. I think melee classes would end up looking a lot more like the ToB, but that's not a bad thing- the ToB was one of the best-recieved late-3.5 splatbooks. The problem arrises when you get people thinking things like "a Fighter can only do things that I am able to envision a real person doing because everything else is magic and fighter's don't do magic" and then they expect that class to stand alongside classes pulled right out of high-fantasy.

You can see a bit of this in 3.5's Monk I think (sorry, I'm not familiar with 4e and 5e). They have a pseudo-magical fighter but the designers where so paranoid about it being OP or lore-breaking that in reality it gets things many levels after casters have had all the identical abilities. That mentality needs to be shot through the knees and left to die.

Deleted

2017-02-19, 09:12 PM

To Deleted: Subclasses might work as a flexibility tool, depends on the exact implementation. I am curious about what you said about martial. I agree that martials should be different why not have them have equal power, in a different form, to casters?

As for combat, I would rather focus on individual rounds getting faster than cutting down the number of rounds. Both work but D&D is supposed to be a tactical game I think time/rounds might be a better focus. Does that change anything?

If you set up subclasses as a way to support main classes, instead of being all over the place like 5e has them, you could have them use broad terms.

"When you cast a spell..."
"When you make a weapon attack..."
"When you roll an ability check..."
"As a reaction, whenever you..."

If you have the evoker subclass you could apply that to a cleric who has taken up the arcane arts in order to manipulate their divine spells. That Cleric is now a MC Wizard.

This would also help stop all the dips and broken combinations.

As for time...

The issue I've seen when it comes to turn time is due to the player's inability to have their turn ready. No ammount of simplification of the rules will change that as D&D is a dynamic game where tjings change round to round. Even with 4 champions you will have issues with players taking too long as they need to decide the best course of actions. D&D is also a social game so you will never really get to the quickness of a videogame.

====

Agreed- for this I personally like to take inspiration from videogames. Stuff like MMORPGs and MOBAs have tons of melee-centric heroes with awesome abilities that you could borrow outright steal from. I think melee classes would end up looking a lot more like the ToB, but that's not a bad thing- the ToB was one of the best-recieved late-3.5 splatbooks. The problem arrises when you get people thinking things like "a Fighter can only do things that I am able to envision a real person doing because everything else is magic and fighter's don't do magic" and then they expect that class to stand alongside classes pulled right out of high-fantasy.

You can see a bit of this in 3.5's Monk I think (sorry, I'm not familiar with 4e and 5e). They have a pseudo-magical fighter but the designers where so paranoid about it being OP or lore-breaking that in reality it gets things many levels after casters have had all the identical abilities. That mentality needs to be shot through the knees and left to die.

Just saw thus...

5e's monk is pretty good and is based on 4e's monk which was awesome. 3.5's monk is so damn bad... Like... It had a good idea at its base, yes, but 4e and 5e expanded upon it and made it awesome.

Sadly, 4e and 5e made the monk Psionic/magical and isn't really a martial.

I think if someone exanded on fighting and made it as in-depth as magic it would go a long way to fixing the problem. Tome of Battle is the closest thing to this with 4e close... But really a system that worked off a combo system would be awesome.

Both had issues tho.

I think 13th Age's Fighter is on to something.

Have features tied to how high you roll an attack roll with a weapon. My reaction Fighter (Champion) does this.

Have different classes (Martials) have access to different abilities based on how well they strike (and if they hit).

Just like how if you atrike well enough you critical hit.

So, if I'm a Rogue and roll a 15+ on my attack roll (and hit) I can then blind you (pocket sand) till the end of my turn. This would allow me to dash away from you while you instead of disengaging as you would have disadvantage to hitting me.

Expand on basic maneuvers with classes too, of course, but each class having their niche would be nice.

Barbarian: Brute force
Rogue: Tactical
Fighter: Little bit of A and a little bit of B.

Cluedrew

2017-02-19, 09:35 PM

The problem arrises when you get people thinking things like "a Fighter can only do things that I am able to envision a real person doing because everything else is magic and fighter's don't do magic" and then they expect that class to stand alongside classes pulled right out of high-fantasy.There is a thread, currently on page 17, that is about that topic. ... Mind you 17 pages and we still don't have an answer.

To Deleted: I don't know how fast I could get it, even if I was put in charge of 6e, but I would certainly try. I can't out design player indecision, that I will admit.

Deleted

2017-02-19, 10:06 PM

There is a thread, currently on page 17, that is about that topic. ... Mind you 17 pages and we still don't have an answer.

To Deleted: I don't know how fast I could get it, even if I was put in charge of 6e, but I would certainly try. I can't out design player indecision, that I will admit.

5e is fast... But so is 3e and 4e when you have players who know what they are doing.

If you made it any more simple people would feel like you are going from a tactical RPG to a button mashing shoot em up arcade game.

Deepbluediver

2017-02-19, 10:36 PM

There is a thread, currently on page 17, that is about that topic. ... Mind you 17 pages and we still don't have an answer.
Any chance I could get a link?

Deleted

2017-02-19, 11:46 PM

Ok, I've had a few drinks but...

http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/rJvuN1uKl

What I'm trying to put into words is something like this.

Eventually there would be hundreds of these and eventually I would want to have combos where you mix and match some of the weapon combats.

Like...

If you know both Einhander and Zweihander basic weapon combat, you could make your own intermediate weapon combat by making the following...

Zweihander Horizontal Slash
intermediate martial combat

Attacks: 2 Weapon Attacks
Weapon Type: Heavy Melee Weapon (Sword)

Using a heavy two handed sword in one hand and you don't have a shield or weapon in your off hand, you make two horizontal slashes in an attempt to slice the target(s) of your weapon attack into two or more pieces.

If you roll a 15 or higher, you may use your bonus action to shove one of the targets prone with your free hand.

Special: You may wield heavy two handed weapons (swords) in one hand without taking any penalties, provided you don't wield a shield or another weapon in your off hand.
Special: If your base roll is 13 or higher, each target takes an additional 1d6 damage.

Edit===

A feat would just give access to two basic weapon combat options.

2D8HP

2017-02-20, 12:04 AM

Ok, I've had a few drinks but...

http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/rJvuN1uKl

What I'm trying to put into words is something like this.

Eventually there would be hundreds of these and eventually I would want to have combos where you mix and match some of the weapon combats.

Like...

If you know both Einhander and Zweihander basic weapon combat, you could make your own intermediate weapon combat by making the following...

Zweihander Horizontal Slash
intermediate martial combat

Attacks: 2 Weapon Attacks
Weapon Type: Heavy Melee Weapon (Sword)

Using a heavy two handed sword in one hand and you don't have a shield or weapon in your off hand, you make two horizontal slashes in an attempt to slice the target(s) of your weapon attack into two or more pieces.

If you roll a 15 or higher, you may use your bonus action to shove one of the targets prone with your free hand.

Special: You may wield heavy two handed weapons (swords) in one hand without taking any penalties, provided you don't wield a shield or another weapon in your off hand.
Special: If your base roll is 13 or higher, each target takes an additional 1d6 damage.

Reminds me of Arms Law (https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/9/9479.phtml) from what became Rolemaster (https://www.amazon.com/Arms-Law-Claw-Rolemaster/dp/0915795000)

Deleted

2017-02-20, 12:07 AM

Reminds me of Arms Law (https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/9/9479.phtml) from what became Rolemaster (https://www.amazon.com/Arms-Law-Claw-Rolemaster/dp/0915795000)

Never heard of them, i'll take a look!

The basic concept of this (roll a high enough number for cool results) comes from 13th Age's fighter. Though that Fighter has some other stuff going on I like that mechanic.

2D8HP

2017-02-20, 12:30 AM

Never heard of them, i'll take a look!

The basic concept of this (roll a high enough number for cool results) comes from 13th Age's fighter. Though that Fighter has some other stuff going on I like that mechanic.

I'm not familiar with 13th Age, but I think I now have an idea of what you're trying for (and when I still had a young agile mind with some intelligence I would have more highly approved), there were efforts towards realism in the old days, Chivalry & Sorcery (https://www.amazon.com/Chivalry-Sorcery-2nd-BOX-SET/dp/B000FBK4EG) comes to mind, and Runequest (http://www.chaosium.com/runequest/) was immensely popular in my circle.

My first DM/GM who introduced me to OD&D tried C&S, and my second DM/GM (his little brother).was a fan of first Runequest, then Rolemaster.

I really think you'll dig then.

Deleted

2017-02-20, 12:47 AM

I'm not familiar with 13th Age, but I think I now have an idea of what you're trying for (and when I still had a young agile mind with some intelligence I would have more highly approved), there were efforts towards realism in the old days, Chivalry & Sorcery (https://www.amazon.com/Chivalry-Sorcery-2nd-BOX-SET/dp/B000FBK4EG) comes to mind, and Runequest (http://www.chaosium.com/runequest/) was immensely popular in my circle.

My first DM/GM who introduced me to OD&D tried C&S, and my second DM/GM (his little brother).was a fan of first Runequest, then Rolemaster.

I really think you'll dig then.

Oh, I don't want realism in my games, I want options. Realism can be thrown right out the window (preferably by a Weapon Combat called "Defenestration Adept") :smalltongue:

13th Age was made by a 3e and 4e D&D designer and is pretty much 5e before 5e or an alternate timeline 5e. It isn't all great but there are a handful of really neat things and overall a good system.

http://www.13thagesrd.com/

But I do more grounded abilities too, some people prefer them after all.

Arkhios

2017-02-20, 12:50 AM

A short answer to a short question: I wouldn't.

A long answer, assuming I would:

I'd definitely keep the bounded accuracy, and the limit to one's basic abilities (no higher than 20 in an ability score etc.)

While I doubt it would happen, I could see that the base classes were thinned even further back to the "four basic chassis": a priest, a warrior, a rogue, and a mage; or even further to: a mage, a warrior, and a rogue.

Each of them could have kits, that'd represent their approach and skills. For example a divine caster kit would have the classic abilities to cure wounds, and such. These kits could be available to all base classes, and would shape their career in their own ways.

A mage with Divine Caster Kit could become a cleric or druid.
A rogue with Divine Caster Kit could become a ranger, for example.
A warrior with Divine Caster kit could become a paladin.

With an Arcane Caster Kit:
A mage could be a wizard, a sorcerer, or maybe (tome) warlock (or all these could be seen as same thing, I dunno)
A rogue could be an Arcane Trickster, a (lore) bard, or maybe (chain) warlock.
A warrior could be Eldritch Knight, a (valor) bard, or maybe (blade) warlock.

Just a few ideas, but you get the idea (I think).

Deepbluediver

2017-02-20, 01:03 AM

A mage with Divine Caster Kit could become a cleric or druid.
A rogue with Divine Caster Kit could become a ranger, for example.
A warrior with Divine Caster kit could become a paladin.
I think there's actually 3 flavors of magic in D&D: arcane, divine, and lets call it "wild" but really it means all the nature-flavored stuff. With that and the "warrior, rogue, caster" I think you could places for just about all the classes.

2D8HP

2017-02-20, 01:04 AM

A game that somehow combined '70's rules D&D, 5e D&D, Pendragon, and Stormbringer! would be good for me, except that of all those only 5e is popular anymore, and I want actual other people willing to play the game.

Based on what little I know of 3e/3.5, I'm pleased with the direction 5e has taken away from them, and if a 6e continues in that direction, I think I will be pleased, but in general I fear change.

Potato_Priest

2017-02-20, 01:09 AM

in general I fear change.

This is wise. If the Unearthed Arcanas are anything to go by, you should very definitely fear change.

Not all of them are bad, some of them are quite well done. It's just, a lot of the others make the good ones seem like an accident.

Arkhios

2017-02-20, 01:09 AM

I think there's actually 3 flavors of magic in D&D: arcane, divine, and lets call it "wild" but really it means all the nature-flavored stuff. With that and the "warrior, rogue, caster" I think you could places for just about all the classes.

yeah, you're right. I was thinking too complicated.

The game could be split into three categories:

Magic, Combat, and Skills.

Magic would include arcane, divine, and nature magics.
Combat would include melee, ranged, and maneuvers.
Skills would include ability checks (such as skills) and saving throws, and possibly the concept of proficiencies and their bonus, which is actually a good thing.

With the three core "classes", rogue, spellcaster, and warrior, you could indeed build any class you want, combining the three categories as you see fit.

Deleted

2017-02-20, 01:17 AM

I think there's actually 3 flavors of magic in D&D: arcane, divine, and lets call it "wild" but really it means all the nature-flavored stuff. With that and the "warrior, rogue, caster" I think you could places for just about all the classes.

4e called it Primal but they don't really talk about it anymore.

I need to read the druid again but I think they are just divine casters now.

GalacticAxekick

2017-02-20, 03:07 AM

I wouldn't make a 6th edition, strictly speaking. I think 5e is doing a wonderful job.

But let's say we're making a 5.5e. There are definitely some things I'd live overhauled:

Class describes progression of one power source. For a Fighter, that's martial skill. For a Wizard, that's arcane study. For a Cleric, that's divine favour. For a Rogue, that's guile. So I'd remove or overhaul classes and subclasses that draw from more than one power source. Eldritch Knights are Fighter/Wizards. Paladin are Fighter/Clerics. Rangers do not cast spells
I think drawing arcane power from performance is ridiculous. I'd much rather if spellcasting Bards were a flavour of Wizards, Sorcerers or Clerics, and not a class of their own. That said, I love the concept of a class rooted in social skill above combat and exploration, and so I'd write a mundane Bard class in with neither concentional martial skills nor any spellcasting. Subclasses would probably The College Spoken (oratory theme, command features, rhetoric), The College Heard (music theme, spell-like features including thunder, silence, ventriloquism and mimicry), and The College Seen (circus/dance/theatre theme, feats of strength and acrobatics, weapons and armour, miming and mimicry). To help these Bards perform in combat without spells or exceptional combat skill to support them, I'd grant them what I'll call Presence, which they may amplify or suppress. When Presence is amplified, it becomes difficult for enemies to target anyone but them, and they inspire allies (empowering the party, putting themselves at risk). When Presence is suppressed, they are hiding in plain sight, leaving allies almost alone but granting themselves some breathing room.
I think Monks need more thematic versatility: not every martial artist has to be a wise, magic man in robes, burning with mystic ki, and for that matter, most martial artists should be Fighters! I'd remove ki entirely from the Monk's core themes and mechanics, and I'd let Fighters access master martial arts. Monks would instead be defined—mechanically and thematically—by their integration of mind and body. By sheer cognizance and fitness, not conventional martial skill, a Monk is a perceptive, reactive, agile living weapon. Mechanically, this might look like proficiency with unarmed strikes and improvised weapons, as well as feature I'd call As Above, So Below: Str and Int are both viable for unarmed/improvised attacks (think left hook vs pressure point), Dex and Wis both apply to unarmoured AC (think reaction vs anticipation), and Con and Cha both apply to HP per Monk level (think vigor vs force of will). Rather than outright DPS with increasing damage dice, I'd focus on nonstandard abilities: shoving, grappling, maybe throwing and pinning foes; moving over non-standard terrain; Snatching not only ranged attacks, but melee attacks to disarm or redirect them. Such a Monk would encompass the spiritual masters that current Monks do, built accordingly (Dex, Wis), but also fragile practitioners of "soft" technique that redirects force (relying on mental stats rather than physical), and powerhouses who use cunning, powerfull strikes to great effect while merely tanking blows (Str, Int, Con, Cha).

Arkhios

2017-02-20, 03:21 AM

Cluedrew

2017-02-20, 08:49 AM

Any chance I could get a link?To page one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?514217-Sword-Beats-Spell-Defending-the-God-Martial) or to page seventeen (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?514217-Sword-Beats-Spell-Defending-the-God-Martial/page17)? I should warn you it gets pretty... polarized at some points. Also pretty pedantic, right now we are trying to pin down what is magic so we can not use it.

Actually this class/sub-class reminds me of legend, which had every class a set of three spheres (I think they were called that) each of which made up a third of your characters. With multi-classing rules you could combine a great number of them or pull in specialized ones not normally part of any class. You could even use them to adjust how dependent you were on items which was an interesting idea.

Deleted

2017-02-20, 09:01 AM

Deepbluediver

2017-02-20, 09:30 AM

To page one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?514217-Sword-Beats-Spell-Defending-the-God-Martial) or to page seventeen (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?514217-Sword-Beats-Spell-Defending-the-God-Martial/page17)? I should warn you it gets pretty... polarized at some points. Also pretty pedantic, right now we are trying to pin down what is magic so we can not use it.
Thanks- I'll see how much of the thread I can get through before I jump to the end, but honestly I feel like the whole argument is a little silly. If you want to "not use magic" why don't you just play d20-Modern? Trying to extract it from high fantasy feels a little bit like trying to take the "dungeons" out of D&D.

Arkhios

2017-02-20, 11:10 AM

If anything, the classes need to be more distinct. Give me a mechanical reason they have different fluff, or else why do they have different fluff?

Was this directed at me, or just in general? I can't give you the mechanical reason, because the class isn't my creation. ;)

Deepbluediver

2017-02-20, 11:54 AM

If anything, the classes need to be more distinct. Give me a mechanical reason they have different fluff, or else why do they have different fluff?
D&D is supposed to be a ROLEPLAYing game, so I think you could argue that the writers were giving guidance to people for potential RP in addition to the mechanics. You could alternatively argue that a better system would simply have mechanics and leave all the fluff to players, but that seems rather unfriendly to newbies.

That being said, I am totally on board with some forms of standardization for casters, at least with regards to the mechanics of spellcasting.

2D8HP

2017-02-20, 11:58 AM

This is wise. If the Unearthed Arcanas are anything to go by, you should very definitely fear change.

Not all of them are bad, some of them are quite well done. It's just, a lot of the others make the good ones seem like an accident.I agree, UA has definitely been scattershot. I liked the Swashbuckler (and judging by how that sub-class got into the SCAG so did others), but most of the content has been ignoreable).

Some personal history:
After buying everything D&D my meager funds could get me in the late 1970's and early 80's, with the so very bad 1985's Unearthed Arcana I stopped buying any new D&D rules at all, until I dipped back in with 3e. When 3.5 & 4e came out so soon, I went back to boycotting (you owe me some money WotC!) until my son turned the same age I was when I discovered D&D.
Since the 5e "core books", and Princes of the Apocalypse were on the shelves of my local library, I checked them out, and then starting buying everything 5e, but I still fear a repeat of 1985 (or 2004).

yeah, you're right. I was thinking too complicated.

The game could be split into three categories:

Magic, Combat, and Skills.

Magic would include arcane, divine, and nature magics.
Combat would include melee, ranged, and maneuvers.
Skills would include ability checks (such as skills) and saving throws, and possibly the concept of proficiencies and their bonus, which is actually a good thing.

With the three core "classes", rogue, spellcaster, and warrior, you could indeed build any class you want, combining the three categories as you see fit.

Implementation matters of course, but that sounds like a really good idea!

GalacticAxekick

2017-02-20, 01:58 PM

D&D Bards are bit more complex than just performance based spellcasters. Their roots are in gaelic and welsh folklore, and they are more akin with druids than wizards. Both lorewise and mechanically. Bard was originally a mix of fighter/rogue/druid, if I remember right (I didn't personally play the edition where bards were first introduced, but a friend of mine is deeply interested on the matter and we have discussed about this from time to time). Even now, if you look at it closely, bards share quite a good number of spells with druids.

In gaelic and welsh folklore, bards would be able to cause magical effects via their songs and tales of old, which is why performance is so important to the class even now.That makes sense, but I see classes in terms power source more than culture/lore/fluff, since all of that changes with setting and character, while power source remains. For the same reason I would have samurai, knights and such folded into the Fighter, I'd want the spellcasting bard folded into other classes based on its power source.

Does she study casting from song and story as spell focus and components? Wizard.

Does she cast from the emotions her songs and stories dredge up? Sorcerer.

Does she evoke spirits or forces through song? Cleric/Druid/Warlock.

I always saw Bards as manipulating the raw emotion of arcane magic into doing something they wanted (via performance) while wizard manipulated arcane magic via logic. Sorcerers are arcane magic so they don't have to manipulate it, they just do something they have learned to do.I always saw Sorcerers as people with an intuitive talent for magic, vs a Wizard's studied skill. A Sorcerer is to a Wizard as a Barbarian is to a Fighter, casting from force of will and emotion rather than technique.

If a Bard is casting from their emotions, to me, they're a Sorcerer who happens to use music to focus.

If anything, the classes need to be more distinct. Give me a mechanical reason they have different fluff, or else why do they have different fluff?The Wizard's fluff of studied magic is reflected by their broad spell list and the specificity of effects they can muster: they learn spells like Alarm, Illusory Script, Tenser's Floating Disk and Unseen Servant that have clear purpose and design, vs the Sorcerer's more ham-fisted evocations, abjurations, force of personality and such.

Besides spell lists, though, I feel like Sorcerers and Wizards are almost mechanically backwards. Wizards, who study magic intimately, should be able to fine-tune their spells through metamagic. Sorcerers, who learn magic intuitively, should be forced to specialize in one school where their talents are most manifest. But that backwardsness aside, the devs intention was surely Wizards study magic, and so they can specialize their studies unlike Sorcerers. Sorcerers have intuitive magic, and so their spells are as versatile as their selves.

WhatThePhysics

2017-02-20, 03:16 PM

First, make ability scores just the modifier. I don't need to keep track of 2 numbers, and you don't need to waste book space with extra digits.

Second, no more X times/day powers. They either require a charge up, are at will effects, or your mastery over them lets you go from the former option to the latter.

Third, alignment wouldn't be based off ethics and morality, but spiritual attunement to a cosmic force that's far from vague or misinterpretable.

Fourth, can we not have the vast majority of sapient races outlive humans by centuries? Not only is that a very tired trope, it also makes it hard to justify why humans still exist.

Finally, get rid of experience points. Challenge rating systems are far from accurate, and there are already enough things to keep track of.

Deepbluediver

2017-02-20, 03:25 PM

I think some of this boils down to opinion, and it's fine that we disagree, but I wanted to comment anyway.

Second, no more X times/day powers. They either require a charge up, are at will effects, or your mastery over them lets you go from the former option to the latter.
I would think the "8 hours of rest" would be your charge-up period, and then they become at-will. On a similar topic, what do you think of cooldowns though, like "once every 1d6 rounds"?

Third, alignment wouldn't be based off ethics and morality, but spiritual attunement to a cosmic force that's far from vague or misinterpretable.
Could you expand on that? I realize that the alignment system in 3.5 has caused an almost infinite amount of arguments, but so long as it's less directly involved with classes, the system itself is I think not a bad guide.

Fourth, can we not have the vast majority of sapient races outlive humans by centuries? Not only is that a very tired trope, it also makes it hard to justify why humans still exist.
Why do you think that a shorter lifespan makes it less likely for humans to survive? Normally the reason that other races haven't taken over is explained by the fact that humans breed much quicker, so it's sort of like comparing ants to elephants; the latter is in FAR greater danger of extinction.

Finally, get rid of experience points. Challenge rating systems are far from accurate, and there are already enough things to keep track of.
Personally I don't mind tracking XP, but I prefer a version where it's the same amount from level to level and level-inappropriate encounters earn you no XP (or I guess they could earn you way more if they are imbalanced in the other direction).

Deleted

2017-02-20, 03:43 PM

Was this directed at me, or just in general? I can't give you the mechanical reason, because the class isn't my creation. ;)

More of a general statement toward... Everyone.

D&D is supposed to be a ROLEPLAYing game, so I think you could argue that the writers were giving guidance to people for potential RP in addition to the mechanics. You could alternatively argue that a better system would simply have mechanics and leave all the fluff to players, but that seems rather unfriendly to newbies.

That being said, I am totally on board with some forms of standardization for casters, at least with regards to the mechanics of spellcasting.

Then play a free form game?

Roleplaying games don't have to be freeform, many popular roleplaying games have specific classes. To have specific classes you need different mechanics to show why and how their fluff is different. If there is no difference mechanically from a Wizard and a Fighter, are you playing a wizard or fighter? No matter what you want to fluff it as, people will side one way or the other.

Mechanics are a more important feature of a class than fluff. Anyone can change fluff without affecting the balance of the game or the balance of the class. If you change mechanics you can affect the balance, break something, or make it not feel "D&D" (eg: 4e).

In 4e all the classes had the right fluff, but they looked weird and had different mechanics.

That makes sense, but I see classes in terms power source more than culture/lore/fluff, since all of that changes with setting and character, while power source remains. For the same reason I would have samurai, knights and such folded into the Fighter, I'd want the spellcasting bard folded into other classes based on its power source.

Does she study casting from song and story as spell focus and components? Wizard.

Does she cast from the emotions her songs and stories dredge up? Sorcerer.

Does she evoke spirits or forces through song? Cleric/Druid/Warlock.

I always saw Sorcerers as people with an intuitive talent for magic, vs a Wizard's studied skill. A Sorcerer is to a Wizard as a Barbarian is to a Fighter, casting from force of will and emotion rather than technique.

If a Bard is casting from their emotions, to me, they're a Sorcerer who happens to use music to focus.

The Wizard's fluff of studied magic is reflected by their broad spell list and the specificity of effects they can muster: they learn spells like Alarm, Illusory Script, Tenser's Floating Disk and Unseen Servant that have clear purpose and design, vs the Sorcerer's more ham-fisted evocations, abjurations, force of personality and such.

Besides spell lists, though, I feel like Sorcerers and Wizards are almost mechanically backwards. Wizards, who study magic intimately, should be able to fine-tune their spells through metamagic. Sorcerers, who learn magic intuitively, should be forced to specialize in one school where their talents are most manifest. But that backwardsness aside, the devs intention was surely Wizards study magic, and so they can specialize their studies unlike Sorcerers. Sorcerers have intuitive magic, and so their spells are as versatile as their selves.

Also yes.

I don't mind the Bard being a subclass of the Sorcerer one bit.

But there is a difference between "I am magic" and evoking the emotion of magic. My sorcerer will have an artist subclass finished at some point and my friend already says that the Artist should be a Bard subclass.

WhatThePhysics

2017-02-20, 03:49 PM

I would think the "8 hours of rest" would be your charge-up period, and then they become at-will. On a similar topic, what do you think of cooldowns though, like "once every 1d6 rounds"?
Though, some editions and classes require a period of uninterrupted meditation on top of the 8 hours of rest. When I mean "charge up", it's just a prolonged casting time.

As long as the cooldowns aren't obscenely complex to calculate and track, I'm fine with that.

Could you expand on that? I realize that the alignment system in 3.5 has caused an almost infinite amount of arguments, but so long as it's less directly involved with classes, the system itself is I think not a bad guide.
It's generally so vague, you need DM rulings just to make it work. Then there are obscure clauses and idiosyncrasies, such as only specific poisons being acceptable, and being damned because you cast Deathwatch.

My suggestion would be to make it a pact-like mechanic that binds your spirit to a certain cosmic force. Rather than "evil", it's "demons" or "devils". Rather than "good", it's "archons" or "angels". If you're bound to a given deity, then smite attacks from opponents bound to opposed deities will affect you. This prevents philosophical arguments about the definition of "adaptability", and gets right to the heart of the game.

Why do you think that a shorter lifespan makes it less likely for humans to survive? Normally the reason that other races haven't taken over is explained by the fact that humans breed much quicker, so it's sort of like comparing ants to elephants; the latter is in FAR greater danger of extinction.
By that logic, kobolds should be the greatest competitor to every humanoid race, given their short lifespans, lack of intelligence penalties, and rapid maturation. But, when was the last time you ever saw them listed as a standard race?

On top of this, long lifespans mean rapid advancements in a single generation. Sure, widespread procrastination is a decent excuse, but does it really make sense that Elves and Friends failed to significantly progress for thousands of years? An elven version of Leonardo da Vinci or Nikola Tesla could probably take a fantasy world from the iron age to the industrial age all by themselves.

Personally I don't mind tracking XP, but I prefer a version where it's the same amount from level to level and level-inappropriate encounters earn you no XP (or I guess they could earn you way more if they are imbalanced in the other direction).
I just don't see the point of XP, especially when it can become another commodity. I'm not vehemently against it, but calculating the likes of XP costs for casting spells just seems tedious.

Deepbluediver

2017-02-20, 04:14 PM

It's generally so vague, you need DM rulings just to make it work. Then there are obscure clauses and idiosyncrasies, such as only specific poisons being acceptable, and being damned because you cast Deathwatch.

My suggestion would be to make it a pact-like mechanic that binds your spirit to a certain cosmic force. Rather than "evil", it's "demons" or "devils". Rather than "good", it's "archons" or "angels". If you're bound to a given deity, then smite attacks from opponents bound to opposed deities will affect you. This prevents philosophical arguments about the definition of "adaptability", and gets right to the heart of the game.
Ok, so not everyone has to have an "alignment" then?

By that logic, kobolds should be the greatest competitor to every humanoid race, given their short lifespans, lack of intelligence penalties, and rapid maturation. But, when was the last time you ever saw them listed as a standard race?

On top of this, long lifespans mean rapid advancements in a single generation. Sure, widespread procrastination is a decent excuse, but does it really make sense that Elves and Friends failed to significantly progress for thousands of years? An elven version of Leonardo da Vinci or Nikola Tesla could probably take a fantasy world from the iron age to the industrial age all by themselves.
Lifespan is only 1 determining factor, and progress is as much a measure of culture and socio-economic status as anything else. Humanity has stalled or even regressed at many points throughout it's history, it's not unreasonable to me that other races might be similar. This is one of those things I think that breaks your personal suspension of disbelief but that other people probably just gloss over. I'm not trying to be accusatory here- I've got plenty of my own quirks when it comes to game design, things that I think are super-important that other people generally respond to like "can't you just let that go already?".

I just don't see the point of XP, especially when it can become another commodity. I'm not vehemently against it, but calculating the likes of XP costs for casting spells just seems tedious.
Yeah, I really don't like XP as a commodity either. I don't know if they got rid of that in 4th and 5th editions, but it was never a very good balancing point in 3.5 IMO.

WhatThePhysics

2017-02-20, 04:42 PM

Ok, so not everyone has to have an "alignment" then?
Yeah.

Lifespan is only 1 determining factor, and progress is as much a measure of culture and socio-economic status as anything else. Humanity has stalled or even regressed at many points throughout it's history, it's not unreasonable to me that other races might be similar. This is one of those things I think that breaks your personal suspension of disbelief but that other people probably just gloss over. I'm not trying to be accusatory here- I've got plenty of my own quirks when it comes to game design, things that I think are super-important that other people generally respond to like "can't you just let that go already?".
Elves have an excuse, as they're usually depicted as pseudo-hippies. However, dwarves are explicitly described as being technically minded, gnomes are often portrayed as tinkerers, and both have lifespans that are much greater than a human's. Sure, they mature rather slowly, but the time they have to apply their inherent technological talent is significant enough that I can't just brush it aside.

Then again, I'm the type of person that thinks inventing an Unseen Servant powered mill should be trivial in a D&D world, and wonders why true dragons haven't ascended to practical godhood. So, maybe I'm biased.

GalacticAxekick

2017-02-20, 05:12 PM

Also yes.

I don't mind the Bard being a subclass of the Sorcerer one bit.

But there is a difference between "I am magic" and evoking the emotion of magic. My sorcerer will have an artist subclass finished at some point and my friend already says that the Artist should be a Bard subclass.I'm not sure what you mean by "evoking the emotion of magic". The first time you said it, I took it to mean "evoking magic through their emotions," which overlaps quite neatly with "I am magic". But since you insist on the phrasing, I'm sure I misunderstood and you meant something else entirely.

Do you mean to say that magic itself has emotions that can be called upon? Like making magic itself angry in order to cast Fireball? And that Bards do so through song/storytelling?

Deleted

2017-02-20, 05:28 PM

I'm not sure what you mean by "evoking the emotion of magic". The first time you said it, I took it to mean "evoking magic through their emotions," which overlaps quite neatly with "I am magic". But since you insist on the phrasing, I'm sure I misunderstood and you meant something else entirely.

Do you mean to say that magic itself has emotions that can be called upon? Like making magic itself angry in order to cast Fireball? And that Bards do so through song/storytelling?

Yes.

Or at least Mystra or whomever controls the weave... Or you can say that arcane energy has emotion (which is why wild magic is a thing).

Bard songs should run under different rules than arcane magic from a wizard because they are going about producing an effect in different ways.

Like... Lighting a fire with a flamethrower or lighting a fire with a chemical reaction. You get close to the same result but the method is totally different. The end result can be different too.

Honestly, wizards should have a "build a spell" system. You take the pieces of spells and create your own spell. Yeah, complex, but you signed up for that when you picked wizard.

Bards should use magic, as long as they keep performing each round their concentration can't be broken. Their effects are based on sound.

Sorcerers should use magic completely different from the other two because they aren't manipulating magic via logic or emotion or really at all... They just are magic.

GalacticAxekick

2017-02-20, 05:47 PM

Yes.

Or at least Mystra or whomever controls the weave... Or you can say that arcane energy has emotion (which is why wild magic is a thing).

Bard songs should run under different rules than arcane magic from a wizard because they are going about producing an effect in different ways.

Like... Lighting a fire with a flamethrower or lighting a fire with a chemical reaction. You get close to the same result but the method is totally different. The end result can be different too.

Honestly, wizards should have a "build a spell" system. You take the pieces of spells and create your own spell. Yeah, complex, but you signed up for that when you picked wizard.

Bards should use magic, as long as they keep performing each round their concentration can't be broken. Their effects are based on sound.

Sorcerers should use magic completely different from the other two because they aren't manipulating magic via logic or emotion or really at all... They just are magic.I can agree, to a degree! I think they should definitely be differentiated, though total overhaul on the magic system for each would probably too much.

I think Wizards should have metamagic, reflecting their knowledge and fine control of their spellcasting.
I think Sorcerers should use forms of natural spellcasting, such as the X Per Y Rest and Recharge X-Y systems
Clerics and Warlocks, for lack of fundamental differences, might be worth uniting as one class, sharing Eldritch Invocations, Mystic Arcana and the Warlock's unique spell slot system
Druids and Bards, who both appeal to the environment, would be rolled into one class. No existing mechanics characterize their spellcasting, so I might grant them a focus on rituals, and maybe gradually-unfolding effects sustained by concentration.

Deepbluediver

2017-02-20, 05:49 PM

Elves have an excuse, as they're usually depicted as pseudo-hippies. However, dwarves are explicitly described as being technically minded, gnomes are often portrayed as tinkerers, and both have lifespans that are much greater than a human's. Sure, they mature rather slowly, but the time they have to apply their inherent technological talent is significant enough that I can't just brush it aside.
IMO being industrious and being creative are two entirely different things- Dwarves are also often stereotyped as being very traditional and I could just as easily say they are suspicious of any new invention.

As for gnomes, being inventive is just the first step in the chain. The first time something is invented it usually doesn't work very well, and takes lots of trial and error to perfect. A gnome could easily lose interest before it gets to that stage and moves on to something else, or they could be much less likely to document something, meaning their discovery doesn't spread and dies with them.

I'm not saying it HAS to be this way, I'm just trying to show the ways that a society could fail to advance, much like humanity failed to advance in many times and places. The industrial revolution had numerous causes (and is often the subject of debate) but humans suddenly doubling their lifespan wasn't one of them.

Then again, I'm the type of person that thinks inventing an Unseen Servant powered mill should be trivial in a D&D world, and wonders why true dragons haven't ascended to practical godhood. So, maybe I'm biased.
Have you read about the Tippyverse? It's basically what would happen if someone with modern sensibilities starts applying high level magic to a medieval fantasy world. Personally I would prefer that the world-breaking status of magic be turned down, but I'm much more OK with a setting achieving a pseudo-modern standard of living through the liberal application of magic instead of technology.
I am NOT a fan of the crapsack-world style of campaign building.

Deepbluediver

2017-02-20, 05:54 PM

Bards should use magic, as long as they keep performing each round their concentration can't be broken. Their effects are based on sound.
I've said before that rather than using vancian casting, Bards would be better off if worked more like Warlocks in 3.5, with an unlimited use of Invocations or whatever you called them.

Deleted

2017-02-20, 06:23 PM

I can agree, to a degree! I think they should definitely be differentiated, though total overhaul on the magic system for each would probably too much.

I think Wizards should have metamagic, reflecting their knowledge and fine control of their spellcasting.
I think Sorcerers should use forms of natural spellcasting, such as the X Per Y Rest and Recharge X-Y systems
Clerics and Warlocks, for lack of fundamental differences, might be worth uniting as one class, sharing Eldritch Invocations, Mystic Arcana and the Warlock's unique spell slot system
Druids and Bards, who both appeal to the environment, would be rolled into one class. No existing mechanics characterize their spellcasting, so I might grant them a focus on rituals, and maybe gradually-unfolding effects sustained by concentration.

I have no clue why Clerics and Warlocks are different classes at this point except "omg sacred cow".

Though, I rolled the Warlock into my sorcerer. It really could go either way. But I prefer pact covenant magic for the cleric.

I've said before that rather than using vancian casting, Bards would be better off if worked more like Warlocks in 3.5, with an unlimited use of Invocations or whatever you called them.

Also yes.

There is countless better ways to represent the Bard and Sorcerer rather than "slightly not a wizard".

It feels lazy that each class is so closely connected mechanically while their fluff is drastically different.

Deepbluediver

2017-02-20, 06:37 PM

I have no clue why Clerics and Warlocks are different classes at this point except "omg sacred cow".
The way I described it was that Gods (actual deities) were powerful enough to have many clerics and a widespread belief system (or they represented something important, like crating, etc). Warlocks are from making a deal with a single entity (usually a demon/devil but also theoretically an angel) who lacks the power and divine spark to be a god, a Faustian deal of power in exchange for your soul. The different nature of their respective patrons and the relationship with them explains the difference in mechanics.

Though I can definitely see it being done your way, especially if the motivations on the parts of the party share a lot of overlap.

Deleted

2017-02-20, 07:02 PM

The way I described it was that Gods (actual deities) were powerful enough to have many clerics and a widespread belief system (or they represented something important, like crating, etc). Warlocks are from making a deal with a single entity (usually a demon/devil but also theoretically an angel) who lacks the power and divine spark to be a god, a Faustian deal of power in exchange for your soul. The different nature of their respective patrons and the relationship with them explains the difference in mechanics.

Though I can definitely see it being done your way, especially if the motivations on the parts of the party share a lot of overlap.

The issue here is that a cleric of X level will be the same power level as a Warlock of X level. Play the cast the same numbwr of spells per day if you go by what the book tells you to do.

Plus, not all settings run "followers = power".

I get why they would be different if their fluff was vastly different... But they are both "trade soul for power".

Now, the cleric may or may not have a better time in the afterlife, but the way they got there is the same :smalltongue:

The Invoker and Warlock were two of my favorite 4e classes. Tons of fun.

Durzan

2017-02-20, 07:44 PM

I would set up D&D 6e to play a lot like my custom system Forgotten Prophecies RPG. It uses 3.5e/Pathfinder as a baseline but borrows heavily from Star Wars Saga, Star Wars FFG, and D&D 5e. The goal is to build everything around a well-rounded skill system.

The core is this:

D20 base system.
Levels: Everyone gains a single talent at every odd level and increase 2 different ability scores by every 4 levels. Feats may or may not be included. No level caps, level caps are stupid. The baseline for all classes will be powered down a notch or two to compensate.No class BAB, AC, or class Save Bonus. These functions have been folded into the skill system and you can spend Skill Points to improve their equivalents instead.
Races & Backgrounds: At character creation, you can choose your race from the following: Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Orc, or Tal'Dori. In addition you get to choose a background package (or with your GM's permission and help, you can create your own), which gives you a backstory for your character (in broad terms). Both your race and background give you additional benefits (and at least 1 drawback) to your character.
Classes: The game is based around 4 basic classes: Fighter, Ranger, Thief, & Magic User (Replaces all spell-casting classes). Instead of having fixed class abilities, each class gets a scaling bonus of some kind at 2nd level and every even level thereafter, while at 1st level and every odd level they may choose a talent from a list of talent trees. Classes also grant profeciency in a set number of skills that you can choose. A skill that you are proficient with effectively grants you a +2 bonus to the skill, effectively giving you 2 free ranks in that skill.
Talents and Feats: Talents function similarly to talents from Star Wars Saga Edition. Dunno if feats would need to exist alongside talents.
Skills: I use a simplified Skill Point system. Each skill receives a bonus equal to (Ranks + Ability Modifier + Misc Modifiers), and if you have a skill profeciency due to a background or class, then you add 2 to that number. Everyone gets a base number of skill points per level equal to 4 + Int Modifier at each level. Skill Points are placed on a 1 to 1 basis no matter if you are profecient with the skill or not. Maximum Ranks are equal to your level, with a maximum cap of 10 ranks per skill. Skills are divided among 5 groups... Offensive Combat Skills (Melee, Brawling, Ranged, Initiative, & Magic), Defensive Combat Skills (Reflex, Fortitude, & Will Defenses, in combat it functions similarly to Star Wars Saga), Physical Skills (Acrobatics, Athletics, Perception, Stealth, & Thievery), Social Skills (Bluff, Negotiation, Composure, Intimidate, Investigation, Insight, Perform, & Handle Animal), and Knowledge Skills (Profession, Craft, Nature, Religion, History, Local, Politics, Arcana, Engineering, & Healing).
Combat: Use a variant of Wounds (10 + Con Score) & Vitality ((Level - 1) x (HD + Con Modifier)) for health. Reflex Defense (10 + total Reflex Skill) replaces AC. Your Fortitude Defense (10 +Total Fortitude Skill) deals with Poison & Disease, while your Fortitude Skill acts as Soak. Armor acts as DR. Criticals bypass DR and Vitality instead of dealing extra damage. You still get a Swift Action, a Move action, and a Standard Action OR a Swift action and a Full Round Action, as in 3.P. You only make 1 attack per round; Higher level characters add additional weapon damage dice to their roll instead. You start taking wound damage when Vitality hits zero. You Fall unconsious and are dying when your wounds fall below 10. You are dead when your wounds hit 0.
Magic: Magic functions the same no matter where you are drawing your magical powers from, IE there is no Arcane or Divine Magic. Magic is Magic, end of story. Mana System is used instead of spell slots, with each spell having a base mana cost of (10 x Spell Level). Cantrips do not technically exist; 1st level spells are effectively cantrips. All Spells are 1st level or higher. Most spells are multi-level, with better or bigger effects the higher the spell level, and with optional modifications (Called Splices) that can be added on to relevant spells... with a spell level adjustment of course. Casting a spell requires you to make a Magic Check (Base DC of 10+Spell Level). In order to cast ANY spell you must have the following: know the spell, have enough mana to cast the spell (Energy Component), a Focus (think Arcane Spell Focus from 5th edition or Pathfinder... or failing that, something like HP Wands or Gandalf's Staff), You must be able to speak (Verbal Component), and you must be able to gesture with at least one hand or with the focus (Somantic Component). You can remove all these requirements through the selection of the proper talents (one at a time for each requirement), with the exception of the energy component. Spells are divided into 8 Domains (Schools of Magic): Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Purple, White, & Black. All Spellcasters are required to specialize in one school; spells inside your specialized school are easier to cast,spells outside a known school are harder to cast, while spells in an opposing color are much harder to cast (Opposing colors are colors that cancel each other out on the color wheel IE Red/Green, Orange/Blue, Yellow/Purple, White/Black.), you can learn additional Domains by talent selection... each time you do so, you may select a color that isn't opposed to a color you already specialize in.
Prestige classes are a possibility.

Etc. Etc. Etc. You get the idea.

Cluedrew

2017-02-20, 07:58 PM

I have no clue why Clerics and Warlocks are different classes at this point except "omg sacred cow".For me a warlock is actually closer to a druid than a cleric or a sorcerer. So the lore is completely different.

Deepbluediver

2017-02-20, 08:19 PM

The issue here is that a cleric of X level will be the same power level as a Warlock of X level. Players the cast the same number of spells per day if you go by what the book tells you to do.
I don't have a problem with that. If you absolutely MUST have an explanation, it's that a god needs to spread their power and attention out among lots and lots of followers, while a Warlock's patron has, at most, a handful.

Plus, not all settings run "followers = power".
My setting isn't entirely like that- it's more like "followers = influence". A god who's last follower had been dead for 1000 years would still be more powerful than the greatest mortal who had ever lived.

I get why they would be different if their fluff was vastly different... But they are both "trade soul for power".

Now, the cleric may or may not have a better time in the afterlife, but the way they got there is the same :smalltongue:
That's getting into what the cosmology for a setting was, which is something else I'd change. Rather than having dozens upon dozens of deities (seriously just going by the basic list there are over 90, and if you start throwing in additional pantheons it quickly gets into triple digits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_deities#Dungeons_.26_ Dragons_3rd_edition)) I'd cut the list down to 15 or 20. I'd have each deity embody a concept like War, and fluff it so that different races venerated or ignored certain groups of gods and goddesses. I'd do away with racial deities like "the god of goblins" or "the god of elves" entirely. If a god is someone a race likes, they'd portray them favorably as a member of that race. If a god is someone a race doesn't like, they'd portray them unfavorably as anything at all. And because gods are immortal beings far beyond mortal ken, who can change their appearance like most people change clothes, all interpretations are correct.

Which leads me to- souls and outsiders. In my setting no one would really know what happens to your soul. Sure priests will TELL you all kinds of things, but the truth is that what happens to a soul after death (or before life or in between lives if you're into reincarnation) is a mystery. It's definitely some sort of heavenly/hellish bureaucracy administrated by outsiders. Outsiders are very different from humanoids and do embody certain metaphysical alignments, but why they are that way no one is very sure of either. Nor does anyone know if Outsiders or Humanoids came first, and who influenced who in terms of morality and ethics.

What I'm getting at is- I kind of want to bring some mystery and ambiguity back into the setting, which IMO adds appeal.

For me a warlock is actually closer to a druid than a cleric or a sorcerer. So the lore is completely different.
I'd love to see different types of magic with at least somewhat different mechanics. I don't know if it would be workable in a D&D style game for balance reasons, but I think of magic like this.

Arcane: power drawn from inside the caster. Like a battery, it can be used up, and takes time to recharge.
Wild: power drawn from the sourounding environment. Unlike arcane magic you can't run out- it's like trying to bail out the ocean. But you can get to tired to push it around any more, and if you loose control of a spell, bad **** happens.
Divine: Power granted to you from a deity or other source. It would be virtually impossible for a mortal to "use up" a deity's power, and it's less dangerous than wild-magic, but it's also far more limited in scope and flexibility than either of the other kind.

So you've got divine power which is safe but limited in adaptability and often comes with other constraints to stay on the god's good side, then wild which is really powerful but also dangerous to the caster and sometimes everyone around them, and arcane which is only a little dangerous but more limited in use. I think that makes a good breakdown for a variety of archetypes.

Deleted

2017-02-20, 08:38 PM

I don't have a problem with that. If you absolutely MUST have an explanation, it's that a god needs to spread their power and attention out among lots and lots of followers, while a Warlock's patron has, at most, a handful.

My setting isn't entirely like that- it's more like "followers = influence". A god who's last follower had been dead for 1000 years would still be more powerful than the greatest mortal who had ever lived.

That's getting into what the cosmology for a setting was, which is something else I'd change. Rather than having dozens upon dozens of deities (seriously just going by the basic list there are over 90, and if you start throwing in additional pantheons it quickly gets into triple digits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_deities#Dungeons_.26_ Dragons_3rd_edition)) I'd cut the list down to 15 or 20. I'd have each deity embody a concept like War, and fluff it so that different races venerated or ignored certain groups of gods and goddesses. I'd do away with racial deities like "the god of goblins" or "the god of elves" entirely. If a god is someone a race likes, they'd portray them favorably as a member of that race. If a god is someone a race doesn't like, they'd portray them unfavorably as anything at all. And because gods are immortal beings far beyond mortal ken, who can change their appearance like most people change clothes, all interpretations are correct.

Which leads me to- souls and outsiders. In my setting no one would really know what happens to your soul. Sure priests will TELL you all kinds of things, but the truth is that what happens to a soul after death (or before life or in between lives if you're into reincarnation) is a mystery. It's definitely some sort of heavenly/hellish bureaucracy administrated by outsiders. Outsiders are very different from humanoids and do embody certain metaphysical alignments, but why they are that way no one is very sure of either. Nor does anyone know if Outsiders or Humanoids came first, and who influenced who in terms of morality and ethics.

What I'm getting at is- I kind of want to bring some mystery and ambiguity back into the setting, which IMO adds appeal.

I'd love to see different types of magic with at least somewhat different mechanics. I don't know if it would be workable in a D&D style game for balance reasons, but I think of magic like this.

Arcane: power drawn from inside the caster. Like a battery, it can be used up, and takes time to recharge.
Wild: power drawn from the sourounding environment. Unlike arcane magic you can't run out- it's like trying to bail out the ocean. But you can get to tired to push it around any more, and if you loose control of a spell, bad **** happens.
Divine: Power granted to you from a deity or other source. It would be virtually impossible for a mortal to "use up" a deity's power, and it's less dangerous than wild-magic, but it's also far more limited in scope and flexibility than either of the other kind.

So you've got divine power which is safe but limited in adaptability and often comes with other constraints to stay on the god's good side, then wild which is really powerful but also dangerous to the caster and sometimes everyone around them, and arcane which is only a little dangerous but more limited in use. I think that makes a good breakdown for a variety of archetypes.

If you make the fluff work, I can see the mechanics working.

When plane walking is going to be a part of the game... I honestly ignore 90% of the deity/outsider stuff in D&D and just make it very fricken vague. Usually my players don't know they are playing in a world that is post holy war (lower planes versus upper planes) and there really is no deity level outsiders (but lesser ones are there). It came up from time to time though when they needed to steal an item from Gruumish and found his domain to be overran and barren (but still filled with traps and lesser outsiders).

This way players can run off meta knowledge and it works for their in game character because that is what in game people believe. Lesser outsiders talk with creatures on the mortal realm and let creatures use some of the natural energy from their plane... But yeah no big cosmic deities or whatever.

Deepbluediver

2017-02-20, 09:44 PM

If you make the fluff work, I can see the mechanics working.
There are probably several different ways you can do it depending on whether you prefer Vancian casting, spell-points/mana pool, or a combination, but I feel like the balance would be really finicky. It's not impossible, but there's plenty of ways it can go wrong.

When plane walking is going to be a part of the game...
That reminds me- I don't know how much of a difference it would make overall, but I'd like to see some sort of planar-map, with travel between adjoining planes being easier and more distant ones being harder or even impossible. Maybe even having gateways to certain planes only be able to be opened at certain points, so you have to gate to one plane, travel overland, gate to another, etc. That would make high-level adventures feel more like an actual journey.

I'd also love to redo some of the planes, like the positive and negative energy planes which I feel have a lot of potential but are really boring in 3.5. Also the elemental plane (singular). Each of the elements would a region that was adjacent to two other planes and separate from it's polar opposite. Obviously a sphere doesn't work for this, so the elemental plane would have to be a torus. In layman's terms- that means a doughnut- I feel like it would be really cool and add to that whole "alien" feel I'm going for. Also the center "hole" of the torus will be almost exactly the same diameter as the planet of the material plane. Whether that means something or is purely coincidental is a matter of some debate for scholars and priests.

Deleted

2017-02-20, 10:18 PM

There are probably several different ways you can do it depending on whether you prefer Vancian casting, spell-points/mana pool, or a combination, but I feel like the balance would be really finicky. It's not impossible, but there's plenty of ways it can go wrong.

That reminds me- I don't know how much of a difference it would make overall, but I'd like to see some sort of planar-map, with travel between adjoining planes being easier and more distant ones being harder or even impossible. Maybe even having gateways to certain planes only be able to be opened at certain points, so you have to gate to one plane, travel overland, gate to another, etc. That would make high-level adventures feel more like an actual journey.

I'd also love to redo some of the planes, like the positive and negative energy planes which I feel have a lot of potential but are really boring in 3.5. Also the elemental plane (singular). Each of the elements would a region that was adjacent to two other planes and separate from it's polar opposite. Obviously a sphere doesn't work for this, so the elemental plane would have to be a torus. In layman's terms- that means a doughnut- I feel like it would be really cool and add to that whole "alien" feel I'm going for. Also the center "hole" of the torus will be almost exactly the same diameter as the planet of the material plane. Whether that means something or is purely coincidental is a matter of some debate for scholars and priests.

I always like 4e's cosmology. Especially Asmodeus and that whole mess.

Though part of me likes the idea of a pseudo Greek ideology and just make all these planes actual places on the material plane. Make "heaven" and "hell" physical places you can climb or dig to.

I would like to see it more accessible and more open though.

That big forest of no return? Yeah, that's the feywild, buckle up if you are going that way.

Deepbluediver

2017-02-20, 10:22 PM

Though part of me likes the idea of a pseudo Greek ideology and just make all these planes actual places on the material plane. Make "heaven" and "hell" physical places you can climb or dig to.

I would like to see it more accessible and more open though.
That would certainly be an interesting way to do things, though I feel it work better for a low-magic style setting than the high-fantasy that most people expect from D&D.

Maybe one thing you could do with 6th edition would be design it specifically with the intent to be easier to tweak for different groups, different stories, etc.

Morphic tide

2017-02-20, 10:49 PM

That would certainly be an interesting way to do things, though I feel it work better for a low-magic style setting than the high-fantasy that most people expect from D&D.

Maybe one thing you could do with 6th edition would be design it specifically with the intent to be easier to tweak for different groups, different stories, etc.

It'd be a semi-natural evolution of a default setting from 5e, which reduced the scale of the characters by a lot. If you lower the scale of characters, why not reduce the scale of the setting? Instead of planar travel, long-distance teleportation takes that spot in the spell level lists. Best part is that you can have the Underdark get a bunch of fiend traffic to add to it's hellhole status.

TripleD

2017-02-20, 10:53 PM

By that logic, kobolds should be the greatest competitor to every humanoid race, given their short lifespans, lack of intelligence penalties, and rapid maturation.

Funnily enough, that was actually part of their fluff in 3.5.

"Races of the Dragon" argued that, back in the days of the war between Giants and the Dragons, Kobold's were poised to be the "humans". They were the race that was going to go forth and civilize the wilds after the dragons claimed victory.

The Garl Glittergold saw what was going to happen and, as the Kobolds tell it, caved in the first Kobold city, along with their god Kurtulmak. They've been doomed to a second-class existence ever since.

As for the main topic...

I don't mind that the game has 20 levels, but few games go beyond level 10 for a reason. If 6e does continue to include higher level spells and abilities, I'd like more support and guidance given to them. Give explicit examples in the DM Guide of what a high level campaign looks like; it's not just "the same dungeon with more powerful monsters".

And for the love of all that is lawful-good and holy, offer the core books as pdfs.

Deleted

2017-02-21, 12:12 AM

Funnily enough, that was actually part of their fluff in 3.5.

"Races of the Dragon" argued that, back in the days of the war between Giants and the Dragons, Kobold's were poised to be the "humans". They were the race that was going to go forth and civilize the wilds after the dragons claimed victory.

The Garl Glittergold saw what was going to happen and, as the Kobolds tell it, caved in the first Kobold city, along with their god Kurtulmak. They've been doomed to a second-class existence ever since.

As for the main topic...

I don't mind that the game has 20 levels, but few games go beyond level 10 for a reason. If 6e does continue to include higher level spells and abilities, I'd like more support and guidance given to them. Give explicit examples in the DM Guide of what a high level campaign looks like; it's not just "the same dungeon with more powerful monsters".

And for the love of all that is lawful-good and holy, offer the core books as pdfs.

I would like to see level 1- 20 become 1-10 but then make 11 - 20 epic levels.

Arkhios

2017-02-21, 12:38 AM

I would like to see level 1- 20 become 1-10 but then make 11 - 20 epic levels.

I think they already are in 5th edition. Kind of. The massive brunt of abilities are gained between levels 1-10 and then the pace rapidly declines within 11-20. Also, beyond 11th level, characters tend to become quite strong for various reasons.

Steampunkette

2017-02-21, 01:20 AM

How would I do 6e D&D... well.

The first thing I would do is create spell templates rather than only explicit spells. Every Sorcerer would get a certain number of templates, Wizards would get more. Applying different effects (Damage, Control, Mitigation, Etc) to your templates would have a certain Difficulty requirement depending on the template. Adding components reduces the Difficulty. Taking more time reduces the Difficulty for Wizards. Taking damage reduces the Difficulty for Sorcerers.

There would also be unique spells (Mordenkainen's Mansion, Bigby's Hand) those that are non-combat would be rituals, combat ones would be template examples.

Fail a spellcast and nothing happens (no slot loss). You get X slots per level of safe-casting. After that you take fatigue on failed spellcasting checks. Fatigue applies penalty to the Spellcasting roll.

Cantrips would still exist and still scale and still be free. All of these functions would be for Sorcerers and Wizards, not Bards or Clerics or Paladins, who would all follow simpler spellcasting rules.

Monks would be replaced by Brawlers or Pugilists. Similar mechanics, less racist ninja fantasy.

Introduce Priest as a separate, magic-heavy, divine caster.

Druid would no longer exist. Bring in Shaman for Nature Magic and say goodbye to Wild Shape outside of explicit kits.

Rangers would be scouts, woodland rogues, and hunters off the bat.

Martial Characters would have different weapon skills based on their weapon choices. Essentially interchangeable sets of special maneuvers based on sword and board versus axe and board versus greatsword versus greataxe etc to give them more mechanical choices and some grit to help differentiate their weapons better than B/S/P.

Dice Pool optional system based off stat modifiers and proficiency bonuses. Stat mod determines dice size (d4 for a +1, up to a d12 for a +5) while proficiency determines the size of the dice pool for the check. If you're at 0 bonus or lower you lose a number of d4s based on proficiency and your penalty. (So a proficiency of 6 with a 0 stat mod would get 5d4. a -1 mod would get 4d4 on the same roll).

Warlocks would have more curses. They would curse people. A lot.

Noncombat minor uses of powers without expending powers. Evil Eye Warlock ability makes some rando NPC fail automatically at some minor task. Wizard lights a fire without even casting a cantrip. Things of that nature.

Deleted

2017-02-21, 08:48 AM

I think they already are in 5th edition. Kind of. The massive brunt of abilities are gained between levels 1-10 and then the pace rapidly declines within 11-20. Also, beyond 11th level, characters tend to become quite strong for various reasons.

The only thing that really gain any strength from level 8-20 is just the spells.

The classes them selves and especially martial classes don't gain all that much to ever be considered epic.

Paragon Tier in 4e was more epic than 5e :(. Not to mention Epic tier.

Outside of spellcasting, classes are very linear. We need a exponential jump in power to have epic levels.

Avianmosquito

2017-02-21, 11:30 AM

I'd start by stripping out alignments and move on from there.

Knaight

2017-02-21, 03:22 PM

This isn't design work I'd want to do - as I've repeatedly said, I don't envy the designers of 5e their position of having to work around the established design of D&D when making something new, and I really don't envy how they're working with what is fundamentally a very focused, very specialized game and a game marketed and understood as the basic game for everyone to do everything.

The first step would be to get away from that, and back to the roots, while also acknowledging that D&D isn't a generic game, doesn't work as a generic game, and shouldn't necessarily be used outside of where it excels. The DMG in particular would give advice for how to handle what D&D is explicitly good at, with explanations on how to implement resource management, dungeon and hex crawling, and similar. On the rules side I'd use 5e as a baseline, but drastically revamp the skill system, get rid of excess mechanics (ability scores and ability modifiers as two different things comes to mind), and bring back some of the exploration side resource management.

Cosi

2017-02-21, 05:59 PM

Cluedrew

2017-02-21, 06:42 PM

This isn't design work I'd want to doIf someone paid me to do it I would definitely put in a good effort.

I also thing acknowledging D&D's specialization is a good idea, but I don't think that will ever happen because of marketing. Still D&D: the setting would be a nice addition.

8. Classes should have different resource management mechanics, which will hopefully be evocative for whatever the class's flavor is. Warlocks should be physically drained by calling on powers from beyond the stars. Barbarian's fury should amplify as the fight continues. Stuff like that.That sounds like the seventh layer of balancing hell. I role-playing game may not really need "balance" but D&D is also a war-game, so it is a bit more important there. Would be completely awesome if you could do it though.

9. The game should be divided into tiers, possibly with the same names as 4e's. However, there should be a strict and meaningful delineation of what each tier is supposed to do. Under no circumstances should "Pit Fighter" and "Angelic Avenger" be options at the same level. This allows you to have the "Fighter" class be mundane without having it suck at high levels. Just force Fighters to become Verdant Lords or Thunder's Chosen.Martial/caster again. I think you can go higher and still be martial, not "Pit Fighter" but "Blade Master" who is "If you look closely, you will notice he only has one sword" levels of good.

Everything else looks to at least be a good option, if not flat out a good idea.

I will also add one: Just revamp all of non-combat. D&D it a combat game, but there should be more than an appendix* in the rule book. D&D social skills are so bad, I know people who refuse that good social rules even could exist. Other sections need work as well.

*Yes, I know non-combat rules are not confined to a single appendix, feels like it sometimes.

GalacticAxekick

2017-02-21, 06:54 PM

1. A default setting. Not Eberron or Forgotten Realms. Use it as a sanity check for abilities you give people, and have someone competent write novels in it to attract players. There's a Ringworld RPG not because the mechanics are terribly compelling, but because people want to play in the settings of novels they like. You should exploit that.

2. Related to the above, use gods that are less stupid. No one cares about Kord. Insofar as anyone cares about Kord, they are pattern matching him to Thor. Kord should just be Thor. The pantheon should be a mix of real world gods (like Hades, Thor, or Shiva), stuff lifted from popular culture (like Dracula, or not!Khorne), and the most iconic figures from D&D (like Vecna, or Lolth).Wonderful idea! Though I think a few such settings would be more appropriate. Each would let players explore different types of campaigns, with one low-level setting and one epic setting, one with robust cosmology and plains and another more secular. This would also be a good way to take different races away from their stereotypes and to show the versatility of classes.

3. A better set of guidelines, explanations, and standards for how the game should look at various levels. Have a set of challenges that people should be able to beat at every level. Use it for testing, and write it down in the back of the book.

4. Have a consistent style guide for how abilities are written, what kind of language abilities use, and what kind of bonuses exist. Have a look-up table of existing content so that there are never two different spells/feats/classes with the same name.

5. Write books to appeal to a wider audience. Every book should have something every player wants. Look at Complete Warrior. Yes, there's a bunch of stuff in there for the Fighter. But there's also a thing about military campaigns for the DM, and in theory some PrCs for casters (Warshaper is supposed to be a Wizard/Druid PrC, even if the people who actually take it are Changelings). Compare that to the Expanded Psionics Handbook, which is a full length splat that only does things if you want to play psionics. That's dumb. Psionics should have been introduced in the book about the Astral Plane, alongside a Gith culture section, a Summoner class, and some discussion about the planes.

6. Learn to be less verbose in ability descriptions. 3e spells (or powers/maneuvers/soulmelds) are too long. 4e powers are even worse. Cut that down.I adore these, especially the idea of books appealing to wider audiences.

7. No open multiclassing. Instead, you pick a subclass, then get abilities from your subclass at fixed intervals. Disagree here, given my views on class (class = power source). Multiclassing is, in my opinion, the most thorough way to cover character concepts with multi power sources. Paladin, to me, should all be Fighter/Clerics. Spellswords, to me, should all be Fighter/[Arcane Caster]s. And so forth. I hate the limitations that subclasses give when it comes to mixing power sources, which is to say, I adore the freedom of building my Fighter X/Wizard Y with any combination of levels and feats/spells I like to carve out the results I want.

8. Classes should have different resource management mechanics, which will hopefully be evocative for whatever the class's flavor is. Warlocks should be physically drained by calling on powers from beyond the stars. Barbarian's fury should amplify as the fight continues. Stuff like that.I think this is true, but I think 5e does a good job of this in many cases, including the two you listed. Why would Warlocks be drained when they don't do their own casting? They borrow it, and so they should have no trouble slinging high-level spells, recovering their spell slots and even casting at will... just like they do in 5e. Why would Barbarians get more and more furious as the fight goes on if, simultaneously, they're drawing nearer and nearer to the end of their stamina (and their Rage!) Those more or less cancel out.

9. The game should be divided into tiers, possibly with the same names as 4e's. However, there should be a strict and meaningful delineation of what each tier is supposed to do. Under no circumstances should "Pit Fighter" and "Angelic Avenger" be options at the same level. This allows you to have the "Fighter" class be mundane without having it suck at high levels. Just force Fighters to become Verdant Lords or Thunder's Chosen. 100%

10. The various spell that replace skills should be rolled into those skills. If knock makes you better at opening locks, and the way the game measures prowess in lock opening is ranks in Open Lock, you should obviously get knock from ranks in Open Lock. I think that totally defeats the purpose of spells replacing those skills. Spells don't represent the extreme end of skill: they represent an alternative to skill. You cast a spell to do X because you aren't capable of X. And (ostensibly) balancing this out, a skill is always with you, while a spell expends resources.

11. Many non-combat powers should become rituals. Some of these should be generally available (like teleport or raise dead), but some could be class restricted in various ways (like speak with dead or plant growth). Whatever rituals exist should be considered when designing the setting.

12. Less prerequisites for feats or PrCs. Requiring three feats and six skills to be a Void Magus (or whatever) just makes life harder for organic characters.

13. Move the various PC-like monsters onto similar rules as PCs. Giants can just be Barbarians with the "Giant" subclass, making it trivial to create Giant PCs.

14. No more +1 swords. Magic items should get abilities, not bonuses, and should not be required for PCs to function. As a result, you can go back to random treasure.I can dig.

15. Add something like 4e's Skill Challenges, but not terrible. Count rounds instead of failures to avoid the skewed incentives that system creates.Something like that, though I personally feel the Skill Challenge system left too much to dice. I prefer to set a high DC and grant bonuses for good ideas. If the subject of the challenge is obvious (navigation, for instance), a player who simply rolls Survival won't get the +X bonus of a player who decides to climb an object and survey the area. If the challange isn't obvious (a trapped corridor, for instance), raw Perception will give you a detailed description of the hall, but probably not the traps themselves: you'll have to interpret from the details of the corridor—such as chips in one wall, tiny embrasures in the other, blood splatter or an unfixed cobblestone—that the trap is something you can look for.

16. Add subsystems for mass combat and kingdom management.Fair! Not my personal interesting with D&D, but I can imagine others trying to bend the game that way.

Cosi

2017-02-21, 11:15 PM

That sounds like the seventh layer of balancing hell. I role-playing game may not really need "balance" but D&D is also a war-game, so it is a bit more important there. Would be completely awesome if you could do it though.

I don't think it's particularly more difficult to balance a Wizard that runs on encounter powers and a Fighter than that runs on at-wills than a Wizard and Fighter that both run on at-wills. In both cases, you just need to write some tests, and iterate until you're matching the testing targets. Plus, the multiple resource management system supports a greater diversity of characters and playstyles, and is more evocative.

Martial/caster again. I think you can go higher and still be martial, not "Pit Fighter" but "Blade Master" who is "If you look closely, you will notice he only has one sword" levels of good.

It depends. I think you can get "uses a sword" working as an offensive strategy in the tactical combat minigame for the whole game. Simon in House of Blades, Thor in the MCU, and Corwin in Chronicles of Amber all fight with swords (well, melee weapons) while still being reasonably high level characters. The issues come more outside combat. What is the "Blade Master" supposed to do if the adventure involves going to Asgard to steal from the vault of Odin? What's he supposed to do when the party is playing on the strategic layer, where no amount of "killing that guy really hard" is particularly important?

I think the correct solution is to allow some Paragon Paths or Epic Destinies to just bump up your swording in combat, and then give you other abilities to use outside combat. So a Barbarian who becomes the Hero of Ragnarok would still fight by hitting people really hard with his sword, he would just get Valkyrie minions to lead his armies into battle, the ability to cause apocalypse weather, and knowledge of the secret paths of Loki that lead to other worlds.

Wonderful idea! Though I think a few such settings would be more appropriate. Each would let players explore different types of campaigns, with one low-level setting and one epic setting, one with robust cosmology and plains and another more secular. This would also be a good way to take different races away from their stereotypes and to show the versatility of classes.

One thing you can do is borrow from Magic. Magic has a bunch of tightly themed low level settings (city world! robot world! horror world!), but also has a setting conceit where high level people turn into planewalkers and go off to fight Cthulhu or the Borg. This also has the nice side effect of mitigating concerns about high level magic warping low level settings. One problem here is that Magic has its own storyline, so you have to do something about the fact that characters that are not the PCs are going around solving all the big multiversal problems.

At minimum, you can just staple Planescape or Spelljammer onto whatever setting you're already doing.

Disagree here, given my views on class (class = power source). Multiclassing is, in my opinion, the most thorough way to cover character concepts with multi power sources. Paladin, to me, should all be Fighter/Clerics. Spellswords, to me, should all be Fighter/[Arcane Caster]s. And so forth. I hate the limitations that subclasses give when it comes to mixing power sources, which is to say, I adore the freedom of building my Fighter X/Wizard Y with any combination of levels and feats/spells I like to carve out the results I want.

Several things to consider:

1. Class/Subclass offers its own advantages of modularity. If Paladin is Cleric/Fighter title, you can't have Sorcerer/Paladins. If Paladin is a class, you can.
2. You can modulate ratios by hybridizing close classes. Paladin too martial? Go Paladin/Cleric. Paladin to magic? Go Fighter/Paladin. You can also flip class and subclass.
3. Open multiclassing doesn't do a great job of capturing specific ratios of ability. If you are a Cleric 3/Wizard 7, you will only be that ratio of Cleric to Wizard again at 20th level.
4. Historically, open multiclassing has tended to deliver way more underpowered characters than interesting characters.
5. Subclasses allow you to support things like "Exiled Prince" that are thematic enough to be worth more than a feat, but not enough to be worth a whole class. It also gives a middle ground for races to live in. Giant is better than Orc, but it's not good enough to justify its own class (and traditional multiclassing fails for Giant/Wizards or Giant/Rogues).

I think that totally defeats the purpose of spells replacing those skills. Spells don't represent the extreme end of skill: they represent an alternative to skill. You cast a spell to do X because you aren't capable of X. And (ostensibly) balancing this out, a skill is always with you, while a spell expends resources.

Yes, but that falls apart at high levels (what skill is matching teleport?). This also gives a unified system for non-combat abilities across classes, which I like.

Something like that, though I personally feel the Skill Challenge system left too much to dice. I prefer to set a high DC and grant bonuses for good ideas. If the subject of the challenge is obvious (navigation, for instance), a player who simply rolls Survival won't get the +X bonus of a player who decides to climb an object and survey the area. If the challange isn't obvious (a trapped corridor, for instance), raw Perception will give you a detailed description of the hall, but probably not the traps themselves: you'll have to interpret from the details of the corridor—such as chips in one wall, tiny embrasures in the other, blood splatter or an unfixed cobblestone—that the trap is something you can look for.

I think the point of Skill Challenges is to have a generic subsystem you can hang prolonged non-combat encounters on. In the same way that you can add various fiddly bits to combat that reward non-mechanical things (like good tactics), you can add stuff to skill challenges that reward non-mechanical things (like having the skill challenge be "get an audience with the king" not "persuade the king" outright).

GalacticAxekick

2017-02-22, 12:56 AM

Several things to consider:

1. Class/Subclass offers its own advantages of modularity. If Paladin is Cleric/Fighter title, you can't have Sorcerer/Paladins. If Paladin is a class, you can. Unless, of course, I multiclassed Cleric/Fighter/Sorcerer.

2. You can modulate ratios by hybridizing close classes. Paladin too martial? Go Paladin/Cleric. Paladin to magic? Go Fighter/Paladin. You can also flip class and subclass.I thought you said no multiclassing? Using subclass alone, sure I could have a Paladin take a Cleric-like or Fighter-like subclass, but that doesn't offer the same fine-tuning of ratio as multiclassing.

3. Open multiclassing doesn't do a great job of capturing specific ratios of ability. If you are a Cleric 3/Wizard 7, you will only be that ratio of Cleric to Wizard again at 20th level.But it does a better job than subclass.

4. Historically, open multiclassing has tended to deliver way more underpowered characters than interesting characters.I'm aware. I'd like to see that change in the future, with greater attention paid to how class features interact.

5. Subclasses allow you to support things like "Exiled Prince" that are thematic enough to be worth more than a feat, but not enough to be worth a whole class. It also gives a middle ground for races to live in. Giant is better than Orc, but it's not good enough to justify its own class (and traditional multiclassing fails for Giant/Wizards or Giant/Rogues)."Exiled Prince" and "Giant" aren't even things I'd consider )sub)class: they're a character concept and creature type, respectively. An exiled prince would take whatever race, class, feats and background suit their concept, and being a giant is something I'd consider race or subrace.

Yes, but that falls apart at high levels (what skill is matching teleport?). This also gives a unified system for non-combat abilities across classes, which I like. I can't tell you what to like or dislike, but personally I think magic shouldn't use the same systems as non-magic: it's whole purpose is to work outside the normal rules and limitations of nature.

I think the point of Skill Challenges is to have a generic subsystem you can hang prolonged non-combat encounters on. In the same way that you can add various fiddly bits to combat that reward non-mechanical things (like good tactics), you can add stuff to skill challenges that reward non-mechanical things (like having the skill challenge be "get an audience with the king" not "persuade the king" outright).Fair!

Cluedrew

2017-02-22, 08:40 AM

I don't think it's particularly more difficult to balance a Wizard that runs on encounter powers and a Fighter than that runs on at-wills than a Wizard and Fighter that both run on at-wills. In both cases, you just need to write some tests, and iterate until you're matching the testing targets. Plus, the multiple resource management system supports a greater diversity of characters and playstyles, and is more evocative.I'm not saying it wouldn't be great if you could get it to work. I am just worried that it might be a bit harder than you are giving it credit for. Generally games that have characters operate on certain tempos only work if the overall game is on a particular tempo that causes the others to line-up.

I don't think you can do that. You can however accept some variation (if the barbarian warrior is the only one still going strong at the end of a massive battle, that's OK) but it can also get out of hand. For instance, the spells-per-day system of casters in some systems {cough} simply do not balance against the at-will abilities of other characters.

It depends. I think you can get "uses a sword" working as an offensive strategy in the tactical combat minigame for the whole game. Simon in House of Blades, Thor in the MCU, and Corwin in Chronicles of Amber all fight with swords (well, melee weapons) while still being reasonably high level characters. The issues come more outside combat. What is the "Blade Master" supposed to do if the adventure involves going to Asgard to steal from the vault of Odin? What's he supposed to do when the party is playing on the strategic layer, where no amount of "killing that guy really hard" is particularly important?Yes but I don't think that we have to turn to caster-like abilities to do it.
Let's play with the master part, that is teacher. This doesn't work for every character put it can work. So the Blade Master is the head of a school of swordfighters. Probably a small elite school of people crazy enough to follow him around in your generic campaign (there might be options for settling down and opening a wider school, or becoming an instructor in the army, so on).

This gives contacts with other schools, a respected reputation, a source of income (which is important if monsters ever stop bleeding money) and minions students that might bring their own secondary skills. Plus things like first aid, weapons care and some combat related non-combat skills.There are other cases. And if you want to go even higher the next step might be flat out "you have ascended to a demi-god by virtue of being that good". Which is very supernatural, but still distinct from the casters and their spells. Mind you, I think neither the fighter+++ nor the wizard+++ should be center stage in the value of Odin adventure. That belongs to the ranger to get there and the rogue to get in.

If you want to talk to this Sword beats Spell: Defending the God-Martial (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?514217-Sword-Beats-Spell-Defending-the-God-Martial) is still going. Maybe we should bring it there, you don't have to read the entire thing. You were in its predecessor thread as I recall.

This also has the nice side effect of mitigating concerns about high level magic warping low level settings. [...] At minimum, you can just staple Planescape or Spelljammer onto whatever setting you're already doing.That was what I popped into my head as well. Although I think without certain safe guards the problem of high level characters warping low level settings becomes much higher. My best idea so far is that some sub-settings have level caps (or tier caps, if those get added) that prevent really strong characters from entering.

I can't tell you what to like or dislike, but personally I think magic shouldn't use the same systems as non-magic: it's whole purpose is to work outside the normal rules and limitations of nature.Just make sure to give it its own set of actual limitations, and rules beyond "it does the thing".

Deepbluediver

2017-02-24, 12:45 AM

GalacticAxekick

2017-02-24, 01:49 AM

Arkhios

2017-02-24, 01:55 AM

Here's something I wanted to ask other people's opinion on- rolling for ability scores (and HP actually). The more I played 3.5 the less and less I liked it. It always struck me as the bad kind of randomness; something that you can no control over but can screw you up and stick with for a long time.

I eventually settled on ability-arrays as my preferred method of stat distribution. What did they do for ability scores in 4th and 5th edition? I know several people have said to do away with ability-scores and bonuses as separate values, but I would love to hear what people's opinions and preferences are for determining said values in the first place.

In 4th edition they actually provided an exhaustive list of different stat distributions* to make it easier for new players (I guess) to pick one instead of calculating one themselves.

In 5th edition this is also given as a kind of default* option.

*However, rolling stats is still an option to use, but I feel that it's not as compulsory as it seems to have been before. Point-buy seems to be the thing that most of the rules are balanced against anyway. Now, I myself love rolling the dice, because I love the randomness - to a degree. I still prefer using averages for HP, because your hit points matter quite a bit for your survivability while your stats can be really anything and you'll still manage well enough, especially in 5th edition since you can increase a score only so much.

Avianmosquito

2017-02-24, 02:02 AM

Speaking of point-buy, a version WITHOUT diminishing returns would be nice.

Arkhios

2017-02-24, 02:10 AM

Speaking of point-buy, a version WITHOUT diminishing returns would be nice.

Could you elaborate what you mean by diminishing returns in D&D/point-buy terms? I'm not very good at economics and the meaning of that term has always eluded me.

Avianmosquito

2017-02-24, 02:19 AM

Could you elaborate what you mean by diminishing returns in D&D/point-buy terms? I'm not very good at economics and the meaning of that term has always eluded me.

Layman's terms: "That thing where the more you put in the less you get for putting in any more."

In this instance: "How in this case for point-buy ability scores it takes two points to buy an additional point in an ability score above 14, three above 16."

Another term is "soft cap".

Arkhios

2017-02-24, 02:31 AM

Layman's terms: "That thing where the more you put in the less you get for putting in any more."

In this instance: "How in this case for point-buy ability scores it takes two points to buy an additional point in an ability score above 14, three above 16."

Another term is "soft cap".

Ach, I think I got it now. Not sure if I agree on the wish, though. Currently it serves a certain degree of balance. The higher your ability score is from the start, the bigger difference your character's ability scores make with very little effort. But, I guess the maximum of point-buy given stats could be limited by other ways, like, just saying you can't increase a stat beyond X with point-buy, while keeping the price for each value in line with others. Let's say that the cap for starting value is 15 before racial modifiers. You couldn't increase your stat beyond 15 before racial modifier, just because the rules say so. If/when each value is 1 to 1 in price this would also mean that the points given to distribute would have to be a lot less.

Avianmosquito

2017-02-24, 03:18 AM

Ach, I think I got it now. Not sure if I agree on the wish, though. Currently it serves a certain degree of balance. The higher your ability score is from the start, the bigger difference your character's ability scores make with very little effort. But, I guess the maximum of point-buy given stats could be limited by other ways, like, just saying you can't increase a stat beyond X with point-buy, while keeping the price for each value in line with others.

And like that, you've lost me. Dude, you CAN'T increase ANY stat about 18 with point-buy. It is actually MORE limited than rolling is, and produces a lower average. It is universally worse and creates universally worse characters. That's a lot of why I called for a restructure of it, and diminishing returns is the start of it. Here's the whole revised point-buy (working from 3.5e as a basis).

There are no diminishing returns, the minimum is 3 and the maximum is 18. A point is a point, so a 3 costs 0 points, a 10 costs 7 points and an 18 costs 15 points. You start with 42 points, so you always average a 10 in your stats. That's it. That's a superior point-buy system. It is extremely simple.

Arkhios

2017-02-24, 03:49 AM

And like that, you've lost me. Dude, you CAN'T increase ANY stat about 18 with point-buy. It is actually MORE limited than rolling is, and produces a lower average. It is universally worse and creates universally worse characters. That's a lot of why I called for a restructure of it, and diminishing returns is the start of it. Here's the whole revised point-buy (working from 3.5e as a basis).

There are no diminishing returns, the minimum is 3 and the maximum is 18. A point is a point, so a 3 costs 0 points, a 10 costs 7 points and an 18 costs 15 points. You start with 42 points, so you always average a 10 in your stats. That's it. That's a superior point-buy system. It is extremely simple.

OH, you meant that. Still, not a big fan of the idea. Sure, you could get an 18 in one or two ability scores, but to get there, you'd have to leave one or more abilities below 10 and that's actually really counter-productive in the long run.

Avianmosquito

2017-02-24, 03:55 AM

OH, you meant that. Still, not a big fan of the idea. Sure, you could get an 18 in one or two ability scores, but to get there, you'd have to reduce one or more abilities below 10 and that's actually really counter-productive in the long run.

...You DO realize that the current system makes that worse, right? What in the FLYING **** are you comparing this to? Seriously, WHAT performs better than that? I will give you this entire exchange if you can give a system, or detail one of your own design, that does better in this exact regard.

T.G. Oskar

2017-02-24, 04:01 AM

I'd use 5e as a basis, to be honest. It's simple to play and simple to understand, insofar as I compare it to earlier D&D editions, rules-light RPGs (Dragon Age), rules-heavy games (Shadowrun) and exercises in complexity (GURPS!!), and it has done a good job so far. Then, I'd cannibalize from other editions, and probably do some minor fixes.

For ability scores, I agree that the best idea is to just use the multipliers. Have the old "ability scores" represent the eventual numbers when rolling dice, but if doing point-buy, just go for the actual numbers you use anyways. Thus, instead of STR 18, you have STR 4. Simple and intuitive. As for progression...make it like Dragon Age? After a score of 5, it takes a bit more to increase the score to the next number (2 "advancements" to reach 6, then 2 "advancements" to reach 7, and so forth). Have the hard cap be 10 - no more than that, unless you're basically a god of some sort, or a truly legendary creature. Magic items that boost ability scores should not boost them beyond 2 at the very least - maybe make it so that they grant a minimum score, and a +1 if you exceed that score.
Regarding ability score advancement - again, i defer to Dragon Age for progression. You have "Primary" and "Secondary" scores - each class would have Primary scores, and Secondary scores. At even levels, you progress Primary scores, at odd levels you progress Secondary scores. You get one such advancement every level, so you rarely end up with more than 10 in one score.
Bounded accuracy is fine, but the DC "defaults" are somewhat unreal. As it stands, it's near-impossible to hit DC 30 unless you're incredibly lucky. That progression based on steps of 5 is somewhat steep - maybe make it steps of 4, or steps of 3.
Rituals. 4e hit the nail with rituals - have spells that have long cast times, or that are mostly utility, as rituals. Even some of the real powerful spells, like Wish, should be rituals. Spell slots should be devoted exclusively to spells that have a degree of "activeness", such as healing spells, offensive spells and buffs. The rest should be rituals,, available to EVERYONE. Yes, no "Ritual Caster" feat - just make them available to everyone, in the vein of 3e's Incantations or 4e's Rituals. You get a ritual scroll, you can attempt to use it if you follow the ritual's instructions.
Alignment can exist, but I'd cannibalize d20 Modern's affiliations. 5e's Backgrounds work great to define a character in simplistic terms (Personality Traits, Ideal, Bonds and Flaws), and maybe you could add "Goals" to that, but to further define the character, you could have affiliations. Characters and NPCs from equal alignment may affiliate to rival organizations, and characters and NPCs from the same organization may have a different alignment. It further adds to the layers of the character.
Spellcasting itself. Make it half/partial/full, with 5/7/9 levels rather than 4/5/9. Spontaneous spellcasters should be the ones with free spells, rather than prepared casters - prepared casters have the advantage of preparing their spell list every day, whereas spontaneous spellcasters are kinda hosed in the number of spells they memorize - if their spell slots are identical to other casters, the advantage should be that they get free spells that reflect their origin, choices or whatever empowers them. Cleric, Druids and Wizards would remain full prepared casters, Bards would return to be partial spontaneous casters, Sorcerers would be full spontaneous casters. Paladins would become half spontaneous casters, while Rangers would become half prepared casters. And Warlocks? I like the idea of Pact Magic - it's their unique thing.
Bards. I think they went overboard in 5e - but they did a good move. Maybe reimplement their Bardic Music/Performance as one of their things (AoE buffing!), but keep Magical Secrets also as their thing.
Concentration mechanic. Here, I'd draw from Shadowrun - impose a "strain" where keeping concentration on a spell makes checks more difficult - the more spells you concentrate upon, the worse the check is, and there's a hard limit. Other than that, the Concentration mechanic as is works pretty well - it makes casters wonder if it's worth providing that many buffs to everyone at once at the cost of hindered spell attack rolls, poor saving throws and poor ability checks, and maybe even the strain being so strong it affects their spellcasting DCs.
Advantage/Disadvantage. I find that a fun mechanic, but make it so that it "stacks" - that is, you count the occasions of advantage and those of disadvantage, and the one that has more grants the benefit once. Two instances of advantage to one of disadvantage? You get Advantage. You get another instance? Does nothing, since you already have advantage, but you get a buffer to situations of disadvantage which is still good.
Magic items and Attunement. Great idea, but somewhat skewed. Keeping bonuses no higher than +3 is fair, and making powerful items require attunement, thus limiting choices, is solid. That said, I'd like a return to 3e magic item creation rules, but more sensible. I'd even allow Residuum to exist as a requirement - it's what happens when you forge a weapon in dragon's blood (the residual magic of the dragon empowers the weapon, or the might of the ogre imbues the gloves with strength, and so forth).
Fighters. They had a pretty good start, considering their humble origins. Second Wind should allow using Hit Dice to recover, while allowing Fighters extra Hit Dice (they recover better?); Action Surge is kinda cool, and so is Unbreakable. The Fighter just has to break the perception that it can't do anything else - and new abilities should emphasize that. The Fighter could get a bit more tweaking.

Those are random thoughts from the top of my head, mostly. Don't need to fix what isn't broken - there's a point where it's better to change the system you use rather than tweak it to your needs.

Pronounceable

2017-02-24, 04:07 AM

I would make 6e...

e6 :smallcool:

Arkhios

2017-02-24, 04:24 AM

...You DO realize that the current system makes that worse, right? What in the FLYING **** are you comparing this to? Seriously, WHAT performs better than that? I will give you this entire exchange if you can give a system, or detail one of your own design, that does better in this exact regard.

42 points eh? Let's do this with 3.5 in mind.

Str 18 (15 points; Of course I have to have as high strength as possible, because that's what min-maxers do, right? /s)
Dex 15 (12 points; I don't want to go last in initiative!)
Con 18 (15 points; more hit points is always more fun!)
Int 3 (0 points; meh, I don't need this because no save is related to this and int skills are boring anyway /s)
Wis 3 (0 points; well, imma hit them hard before they can hit me with spells - assuming I go before them that is)
Cha 3 (0 points; durr, charisma skills are boring. Social encounters are boring. I like hitting hard. /s)

Sure, I can hit hard, and I can take a lot of hits myself.
I might - at least sometimes - go first in initiative order, IF I roll good. And that's a big if.
Now, I'm susceptible as **** to every single mentally stressing situation, such as the always so fun "save or suck", will targeting spells such as dominate. OOH, MY FELLOW PLAYER'S ARE GONNA LOVE MY BARBARIAN IN RAGE! (not). Oooh! Feeblemind. Oh, my, intelligence drops to 0 with little to no effort. Now, I'm a friggin vegetable - which means I can't do ANYTHING. "Yay, so much help with the big brawny stats"!

With a little more serious attitude though:

Str 15 (12 points; 15 is a good stat to start with for a melee character. It's not like I couldn't increase it later, is it?)
Dex 12 (9 points; Maybe I won't have as much use for it, but at least I'm not slow!)
Con 14 (11 points; more hit points is always more fun! ...though I could use more!)
Int 6 (3 points; meh, I don't need this because no save is related to this and int skills are boring anyway /s)
Wis 10 (7 points; well, at least I won't be at a negative modifier now...)
Cha 3 (0 points; durr, charisma skills are so "boring". Social encounters are boring. I didn't come here to talk, I came here to roll dice. /s)

Compared to the standard array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8), 42 points is a lot worse.

Avianmosquito

2017-02-24, 05:02 AM

42 points eh? Let's do this with 3.5 in mind.

Str 18 (15 points; Of course I have to have as high strength as possible, because that's what min-maxers do, right? /s)
Dex 15 (12 points; I don't want to go last in initiative!)
Con 18 (15 points; more hit points is always more fun!)
Int 3 (0 points; meh, I don't need this because no save is related to this and int skills are boring anyway /s)
Wis 3 (0 points; well, imma hit them hard before they can hit me with spells - assuming I go before them that is)
Cha 3 (0 points; durr, charisma skills are boring. Social encounters are boring. I like hitting hard. /s)

Sure, I can hit hard, and I can take a lot of hits myself.
I might - at least sometimes - go first in initiative order, IF I roll good. And that's a big if.
Now, I'm susceptible as **** to every single mentally stressing situation, such as the always so fun "save or suck", will targeting spells such as dominate. OOH, MY FELLOW PLAYER'S ARE GONNA LOVE MY BARBARIAN IN RAGE! (not). Oooh! Feeblemind. Oh, my, intelligence drops to 0 with little to no effort. Now, I'm a friggin vegetable - which means I can't do ANYTHING. "Yay, so much help with the big brawny stats"!

With a little more serious attitude though:

Str 15 (12 points; 15 is a good stat to start with for a melee character. It's not like I couldn't increase it later, is it?)
Dex 12 (9 points; Maybe I won't have as much use for it, but at least I'm not slow!)
Con 14 (11 points; more hit points is always more fun! ...though I could use more!)
Int 6 (3 points; meh, I don't need this because no save is related to this and int skills are boring anyway /s)
Wis 10 (7 points; well, at least I won't be at a negative modifier now...)
Cha 3 (0 points; durr, charisma skills are so "boring". Social encounters are boring. I didn't come here to talk, I came here to roll dice. /s)

Compared to the standard array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8), 42 points is a lot worse.

Grats on saying "I know, let me do the WORST HUMANLY POSSIBLE" and passing this off as an inevitable conclusion of the system, then dismiss the entire system without even a single revision. Somebody hoping to be productive would have said something like "Maybe a base of 4 would have been better and here's why..." or "Maybe a 60-point build...", or "Well, I see you are more concerned with effective range but I feel the average..." but that wasn't what you went with. Your rebuttal can be simplified with zero loss of meaning to "ME LIKE ARRAY", with no argument for how or why. Now, how do we progress from here? I have no interest in a debate that could be reduced to "ME LIKE SYSTEM", followed by "NO! ME LIKE OTHER SYSTEM!" for thirty hours.

Should we pretend that there's some innate and unconquerable difference in goals? That does not seem to be the case, even if it was it certainly isn't the crux of the issue here and even if we pretended it was that wouldn't be productive. Should we each propose a system that works for our exact goals and then talk past eachother for the rest of the day? No, we would only have two mission statements and have wasted a day with zero progress, just giving the mission statements would be better. Or should we sit down, share our exact goals and propose rules based on the goals we share, aiming to improve eachother's systems to a sort of compromise that best suits both of our desires? No, that's what I'd like to do but we're humans and humans aren't that smart.

Would it help if I explained why you feel the way you do on this issue? It's very easy to do, it's a basic explanation of the brain's relation to ritualistic behaviour and how that generates attachments to positions, beliefs and practices one is familiar with over new positions, beliefs and practices. It also includes an explanation of why this is the smart position in the wild but incredibly stupid in an intellectual context. (Primarily this relates to available information, gambling and the cost of wasting resources.) I can do this, but it'll take a while and I only want to do this if it'll help arrive at a conclusion where we are having an intellectual discussion about how to reach our shared goals instead of an idiotic screaming match.

Arkhios

2017-02-24, 05:26 AM

Snip

I see where you were coming from, but with you initially stating that "42 points with no-diminishing-returns, with a range of 3 to 18 would be the best possible approach", in an "end of discussion" manner, are you really surprised getting a response like that? I used sarcasm to prove that your suggested 42 points was worse than what the precedent system is, without having to change anything.

Personally (and I note, this is my personal opinion), I'm not very fond of justifying something based on probabilities, because probabilities are not absolute. Because of this, I'm more inclined to compare, or rather, I would prefer to base the suggested system upon a standard array instead of 42 points.
The issue itself is really easy to fix. Just use the standard array as the basis, which would mean that with the aforementioned system you'd have 56 points to distribute as you wish (within the suggested boundaries of 3 to 18). At least it would be balanced towards what the D&D designers have assumed as the basic set of stats for decades. Who am I to suggest changing that? 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 is really good spread. Adjust within 1 to 1 ratio as you wish, and you're good to go.

I'm not interested in debating whether or not this would be for the better or worse as a whole, because I'm not really, honestly, interested in doing 6th edition for real. I suppose it's a nice thought experiment, but I'd leave it there.

Avianmosquito

2017-02-24, 05:34 AM

...I'm not interested in debating whether or not this would be for the better or worse as a whole, because I'm not really, honestly, interested in doing 6th edition for real. I suppose it's a nice thought experiment, but I'd leave it that.

Ah, I see. Well, as you're by your own admission only interested in making declarative statements without evaluating them (which for the record is not a thought experiment), I'm sorry I wasted my time.

Morty

2017-02-24, 07:54 AM

Hmmm. 5e's skeleton isn't bad, really, the edition is just too terrified of going against the grain to use it well. So, to start with:

Get rid of levels. They would be a derivative value based on how much XP you spent, for purposes of challenge assessment, but no more shackling character progression to level-ups.
There's two things I could do with attributes. First is to just remove them. D&D has enough moving parts that it doesn't need them. However, that may not be compatible with removing levels. So if I couldn't just remove them, I'd reduce them to just the modifiers, and probably only four: Strength and Constitution merged into Brawn, Dexterity staying as is, and the old metal attributes split into Intellect and Willpower, or something along those lines.
Classes need to be broken down and reimagined; the current list is a mess of legacy classes kept around for familiarity. Classes need to be a balance of strong, defining archetypes and freedom to work within them. If they don't have a strong enough identity, we might as well not bother using classes in the first place. If they're too restrictive, well, that's a problem in itself.
Recalibrate core systems like combat, skills and magic. None of them produce the results the game actually needs. The combat needs a lot more diversity, so not all combat-focused characters do the same thing. Skills need more ways of engaging with them than just having a high number and hoping for the best. Magic needs a ground-up re-imagining.
Think about the power curve, and what I want it to look like. D&D has never been able to handle its power level.

That's just the basics. I'd go into how I'd try to accomplish all that, but I doubt anyone cares. Of course, I'd need half a dozen other people and a few years do that anyway.

Djinn_in_Tonic

2017-02-24, 09:07 AM

Speaking of point-buy, a version WITHOUT diminishing returns would be nice.

I'm not sure I fully agree.

Diminishing returns serves as a preventative measure against min-maxing. And yes, it can be frustrating.

But, ultimately, it means the Wizard who really only needs one big score to be useful pays a premium for that in terms of other stats, while the Paladin or Monk who really needs 4-5 scores to be useful gets an extra net total +1 or +2. It means the Druid starting at level 7 can't just stick a 3 in every physical stat, an 18 in every mental stat, take Natural Spell, and spend all day as a Gorilla.

In short? Inefficient but useful balancing tool.

Now, we could remove it. But unless we manage to build a system where min-maxing in general is less valuable, or unless we build a system with a lower cap to starting scores and a higher minimum to decrease the range, all this really does is remove the penalty for skewing to your power scores. I can't approve of that outcome, even though I agree diminishing point but feels bad.

Cluedrew

2017-02-24, 09:26 AM

Grats on saying "I know, let me do the WORST HUMANLY POSSIBLE" and passing this off as an inevitable conclusion of the system, then dismiss the entire system without even a single revision.Arkhios may not have put it very well but let me tell you: I have tried so hard and I can't get the "no diminishing returns point buy" system to work. I spent about 3 or 4 versions of my ongoing system with no diminishing returns but it kept breaking because people kept playing min-maxed characters in a system that does not reward specialisation. I changed things to diminishing returns and the problem was improved with no other changes. Still lots of problems in my system, and of course that is only one case in a system that is not D&D, but I think it shows that there are advantages.

And I don't know of any true advantages to no diminishing returns.

Deepbluediver

2017-02-24, 09:45 AM

Speaking of point-buy, a version WITHOUT diminishing returns would be nice.
Why? In 3.5 at least I think it was supposed to balance out the fact that some classes where much more SAD than others. I actually like the idea that raising a single stat higher should be more expensive than raising two or more stats an equal total amount. In other words, would you pay more a magic ring that gave +6 to one stat or +1 to 6 stats?

You could design a game where each character really really really wanted only one stat (the Fighter is strong, the Mage is smart, the Cleric is wise, whatever) but IMO that's boring. I actually want players and classes to value more than one stat, and I think it makes for more interesting choices when its' cheaper to get non-optimal stats than to sink everything in to just one ability sore.

Edit: Since we're on the subject of point-buy, has anyone ever played a version of the game where rather than getting a flat stat-bonus every few levels you get something like build-points (that's the best name I could come up with) and you essentially keep using point-buy to increase your stats all the way to level 20? How did it work?

Djinn_in_Tonic

2017-02-24, 09:45 AM

And I don't know of any true advantages to no diminishing returns.

In a word? Simplicity. The explanation of Point Buy becomes a single sentence.

Which is, frankly, an admirable system goal. I support clear, elegant design whenever possible. I just feel that, with D&D's current design, diminishing returns are worth the complexity.

Deleted

2017-02-24, 10:05 AM

6e Barbarian would stop being an accountant.

Accountant Bar arians make for a great character idea, I don't want my barbarian class being about rage managment.

If rage could be managed so well, we wouldn't have so many problems... I know this is a fantasy game but cone on...

Also, Barbarians don't dodge attacks, they let them deflect off their perfect body.

I'm brewing up a 5e barbarian (due to a friend reading a 5e thread here on giantitp) and this is along the lines of what I want to see from rage.

Barbarian

Level 1

Rage
Depending on your injuries, your rage grows. You may choose when to rage by using your bonus action while above 50% of your HP, but when you hit 50% or below you automatically enter rage at the start of your next turn.

Once you decide to (or are forced to) rage, your rage ends only if there are no hostile creatures, you are knocked unconscious, or you are restrained and a creature has made a DC (8 + Your Barbarian Level) Persuasion check.

You gain all the bonuses and penalties that you qualify for.

100% HP or lower

+ Advantage on str ability checks and str saving throws
+ You have resistance to Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing damage

- You can't concentrate on or cast spells.

50% HP or lower

Your fury grows as you come closer to death, you have advantage on strength based weapon attack rolls. Additionally, your rage pushes your body further than normal limits allow and you may make a weapon attack with your bonus action. This bonus action attack deals base 1d6 damage.

- Creatures have advantage on their attack rolls against you.
- You can't use features from other classes that you must make a decision as to when to use them. For example, a Fighter's fighting style (duelist) can be used as it just applies to all attacks under a specific condition but sneak attack and smite can't be used as you must determine if you want to use or apply them. This extends to controlling spells that has previously been cast (such as spiritual weapon)

Unarmored Defense
While not wearing armor, your AC is 13 + your Constitution modifier.

Level 2
Barbarian Path

Beserker: Give more martial on the martial.

Rage Mage: Give spell casting

Totemist: Give non-spellcasting magic.

Level 3
Fast Movement: You gain a bonus to your base speed equal to your Strength score.

Danger Sense: At 3rd level, you gain an uncanny sense of when things nearby aren’t as they should be, giving you an edge when you defend against unseen danger. Attacks you can't see don't have advantage against you, which includes but not limited to invisible or hidden creatures and traps. You must be able to see, smell, or hear to take advantage of this feature.

Knaight

2017-02-24, 10:38 AM

In a word? Simplicity. The explanation of Point Buy becomes a single sentence.

Which is, frankly, an admirable system goal. I support clear, elegant design whenever possible. I just feel that, with D&D's current design, diminishing returns are worth the complexity.
It's also something that has demonstrably worked elsewhere, notably in systems which don't have classes and which definitely don't have dump stats.

GalacticAxekick

2017-02-24, 10:42 AM

[various angry noises]5e's 27 point buy with diminishing returns is set up to that mastery is expensive and mediocrity is cheap. The array 13/13/13/12/12/12 (sum 75) costs just as much as the array 15/15/15/8/8/8 (sum 69) so that specialists sacrifice one area for high, specific power, and so that generalists enjoy tangible bonuses in every area for low, broad power.

If 5e ran 75 points buy with no diminishing returns, for example, min 8 max 15, specialists could select the array 15/15/15/10/10/10: the purest brute would sacrifice no study, and the purest scholar would sacrifice no fitness.

If 5e ran 69 points buy with no diminishing returns, for example, min 8 max 15, generalist would only ever make 12/12/12/11/11/11: a so-called generalist would only even have bonuses in 3 of 6 stats.

I believe you mentioned lowering the minimum to 3 and raising the maximum to 18 as well. This might just compound the problem. Either: The points buy is dropped so a super-specialist would look like 18/18/18/3/3/3 (sum 63), in which case a super-generalist looks like 11/11/11/10/10/10 and enjoys no bonuses whatsoever.
The points buy is left high enough for a generalist to enjoy their small, broad power (at least 12/12/12/12/12/12, sum 72), in which case a specialist can enjoy vast benefits and only minor penalties: 18/18/18/6/6/6. The minimum is only ever approached if someone decides to viciously dump certain stats: 18/18/18/12/3/3, at which point there are obvious, devastating, ideal builds.

Djinn_in_Tonic

2017-02-24, 10:51 AM

It's also something that has demonstrably worked elsewhere, notably in systems which don't have classes and which definitely don't have dump stats.

Precisely. :smallbiggrin:

Deepbluediver

2017-02-24, 11:00 AM

6e Barbarian would stop being an accountant.
Accountant Barbarians make for a great character idea, I don't want my barbarian class being about rage management.
If rage could be managed so well, we wouldn't have so many problems... I know this is a fantasy game but cone on...
Can I just say that I don't like "RAGE" as a name for that Barbarian-class ability? It conjures up a very specific image that I think is to confining for what the class is supposed to represent. I'd prefer to call it something like "Adrenaline rush" and let it modify different combinations of stats besides Strength and Con.

Have a couple different archetypes here, maybe
Juggernaut- Large boost to Str, smaller boost to Con
Mountain- Large boost to Con, smaller boost to Dex
Tempest- Large boost to Dex, smaller boost to Str

Maybe even make one that's not linked to physical stats, and let it boost spellcasting instead.
Shadow- Large boost to Cha, smaller boost to Wis

GalacticAxekick

2017-02-24, 11:15 AM

Can I just say that I don't like "RAGE" as a name for that Barbarian-class ability? It conjures up a very specific image that I think is to confining for what the class is supposed to represent. I'd prefer to call it something like "Adrenaline rush" and let it modify different combinations of stats besides Strength and Con.

Have a couple different archetypes here, maybe
Juggernaut- Large boost to Str, smaller boost to Con
Mountain- Large boost to Con, smaller boost to Dex
Tempest- Large boost to Dex, smaller boost to Str

Maybe even make one that's not linked to physical stats, and let it boost spellcasting instead.
Shadow- Large boost to Cha, smaller boost to WisI agree 100% that "Rage" is a confining term an that "adrenaline" is more emcompassing (albeit modern for most fantasy settings. Maybe "rush" or "surge"?)

I love 5e's streamlined approach, so specific, numerical bonuses to [stat] and [stat] don't sit well with me. But I'd loe to see different forms of rage/adrenaline/rush/surge. Maybe something one conventional form that enhances power and durability, one form that enhances the senses and reflexes, and third, final form that enhances saves, concentration and willpower.

The first obviously benefits a traditional, hulking, front-line Barbarian. A real gorilla-type fellow.

The second leaves room for an atypical, agile, skirmishing Barbarian. More of a monkey.

The third is ideal for a commanding or spellcasting Barbarian. Human, in the least flattering sense of the word.

Cluedrew

2017-02-24, 11:17 AM

It's also something that has demonstrably worked elsewhere, notably in systems which don't have classes and which definitely don't have dump stats.As that describes my system (which is why dumping stats caused so many problems) could you point me at them? I would very much like to see how they made it work. I couldn't but if I could it might work even better than the system I have now.

Deepbluediver

2017-02-24, 11:39 AM

I agree 100% that "Rage" is a confining term an that "adrenaline" is more emcompassing (albeit modern for most fantasy settings. Maybe "rush" or "surge"?)
Yeah, you can call it whatever you want- I am totally down with refluffing as necessary. I doubt that a barbarian would know what "adrenaline" is, they just know that through training and practice they can get a temporary boos their the strength/stamina/reflexes, etc.

I love 5e's streamlined approach, so specific, numeral bonuses to [stat] and [stat] don't sit well with me. But I'd loe to see different forms of rage/adrenaline/rush/surge. Maybe something one conventional form that enhances power and durability, one form that enhances the senses and reflexes, and third, final form that enhances saves, concentration and willpower.

The first obviously benefits a traditional, hulking, front-line Barbarian. A real gorilla-type fellow.
The second leaves room for an atypical, agile, skirmishing Barbarian. More of a monkey.
The third is ideal for a commanding or spellcasting Barbarian. Human, in the least flattering sense of the word.
I'm mostly used to 3.5, so I kind of base my ideas on that, but yeah you could add in more benefits or other features to a Barbarian when they are Surging. A while back, when I first started posting, there was another homebrewer around names NeoSeraphi. He made a Barbarian fix that took the totem idea from UA and ran with it, and had the barbarian go full were-animal. I'm not sure I'd go that far, but I'd be happy to do something like give Barbarians natural weapons or some other special ability, too.

Deepbluediver

2017-02-24, 11:44 AM

As that describes my system (which is why dumping stats caused so many problems) could you point me at them? I would very much like to see how they made it work. I couldn't but if I could it might work even better than the system I have now.
Personally I don't mind if a player dumps one or maybe two stats, especially if they are resource-constrained. I think it can make for good roleplaying opportunities and builds cohesion in a group since players can cover each other's weaknesses and everyone needs help with SOMETHING. Where I have a problem is when a class/player decides to dump 5 stats because their 6th stat is just SO MUCH BETTER than anything else.

Also, I use ability-arrays combined with racial stat bonuses, so it also limits dumping to some degree that way, too.

Deleted

2017-02-24, 11:49 AM

As that describes my system (which is why dumping stats caused so many problems) could you point me at them? I would very much like to see how they made it work. I couldn't but if I could it might work even better than the system I have now.

I ran across this recently...

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?475101-Ability-Skills-(reworking-ability-scores)-(3-X-4e-5e)-(WIP)-(PEACH)

I'm gonna adapt it more toward what I want out of 5e (everything running through Attacks, Saves, Skill Checks Streamlined (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?515788-Attacks-and-Saves&p=21720637#post21720637))

*pokes my forehead* you can't have dump stats if you have no ability scores.

Cluedrew

2017-02-24, 11:51 AM

Deepbluediver

2017-02-24, 12:00 PM

To Deepbluediver: We were often looking at 2 terrible and 2 below average stats in the main 5 and everything else max or zero. It was bad. There where probably other contributing factors in addition to the flat costs, but increasing costs seem to have helped. I'm also using some arrays with arrangement, which has helped as well.
Yeah, you could build a system that was intended to run on min-maxing- 3.5 seemed to do that to some extent in that specialists tended to be favored over a party of generalists. But I think it kind of kills both RP and customization in builds.

While it certainly fails the "simplicity" requirement hard, I think the best way to discourage min-maxing is to combine the systems and use ability arrays for character creation and point-buy for improving your stats from leveling up.

Edit: Actually I think the best way to discourage min-maxing is to not make one stat noticeably better than every other stat, but that's a different design challenge.

*pokes my forehead* you can't have dump stats if you have no ability scores.
Only if you do away with ability-bonuses entirely. In a system where you combine ability scores and the bonus from abilities into one number, you can dump some of them in favor of others. Frankly, any system that allows any kind of customization is going to have SOMETHING you can dump.

Suppose you have a system with no ability scores, no levels, and no classes, and everything is purchased a-la-carte from the experience you earn. Then anything you DON'T purchase could be considered a dump. If I'm building a melee hero then I could dump spells. If I'm building a spellcaster I could dump skill points or proficiency. The only character who wouldn't be considered to have dumped something would be the one purchasing an exactly average amount of everything.