Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Results 1 to 24 of 24
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

    Default A Completely Hypothetical System (PEACH)

    I have a habit to drift between subjects, and that's happening in this thread.

    For newcomers who don't want to read a wall of text, the most recent topic starts here:
    http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...9#post15072639


    Original OP:
    Spoiler
    Show
    Before we start, I'd like to make it clear that the concept I'm about to propose is not intended for any one ruleset. I may often make examples for or draw parallels with D&D (3.5) since that's the system I'm most familiar with, but the concept really deserves a whole system of its own (or at least a more flexible one, like GURPS).


    Now that's out of the way, I can start framing some context.

    One of my favorite PC games/series is Age of Wonders, but it's only recently that I've been exposed to its ancestor, Master of Magic.

    I've never found a magic system that I was completely satisfied with before, (NetHack came the closest) but when I played MoM something just clicked. I realized that the way they divided up the magic succinctly encapsulated every basic archetype in D&D.

    Life covers most of the (good) Cleric spells, Nature has the Druids, Death has necromancy of any sort while the remainder of the Sorcerer/Wizard repertoire is easily split between Sorcery and Chaos. Any spell that doesn't quite fit along these lines can be readily interpreted as the caster taking one book of a different sphere.

    But it covers more than just magic. If one were to classify the more "martial" champions of the Life domain, what would one call them? Paladins, of course. By the same measure, Nature has Rangers, Chaos has Barbarians, Death has Rogues, and the fluidity of Sorcery matches Monks nicely. With the "mixed bag" position going to Bard, that just leaves Fighters as "colorless". Mundane, nothing exceptional about them, lacking what makes the other classes stick out above the NPC rabble...

    Which is pretty much the "fighter problem" in a nutshell.

    But then I thought... Instead of fighting this, why not embrace it? Why not accept -nay, explicitly label Fighter as a less powerful class than the others?

    After a while I realized that this phenomenon is specific to D&D, and would be absent in other systems where magic in general is less powerful, but the core concept behind it is still valid: it is magic that makes characters interesting and fun to play, even when it's as subtle as dodging arrows or shifting a half-ton boulder or even hacking into a CIA database. The point is that you, the player wouldn't have been able to do it, so it seems magical -and true magic is in the eye of the beholder.
    No, not THAT Beholder! xD

    It is my belief that if this was explicitly stated as part of a system's philosophy, then the end result would be more fun because of it.

    Sadly, in D&D doing this properly this would probably require tearing up pretty much everything and starting effectively from scratch. Which isn't to say the concept can't be applied at all, just that it would take a lot of work and compromises, and that the end result might not be worth the effort.

    Which is why this system is staying a hypothetical one for now. I have no intent to develop it into a full-fledged game at the moment, although I'd be more than happy to act as a creative adviser if anyone else wants to do so.



    Now, on to specifics. As the system itself is purely hypothetical, so are they. All I'm posting are my thoughts on possible ways of going about doing things. (Although I do have the inklings of a setting growing alongside this.) Please forgive me in advance for rambling a bit at times.


    Now, first off I'd like to blur, or if possible, remove the line between "magic" and "non-magic" -but in a way that makes things more magical. So, when someone does the impossible... They do exactly that. By rights, they shouldn't be able to do it... But they did.

    I'd like to, but... This probably isn't feasible. At the very least, it would rely heavily on the GM's ability to ad-hoc things, which probably isn't a good idea. So, I'll try to uphold this concept, but won't start over if I can't.


    Anyways, I've come up with six different "Domains", which combined should hopefully be able to encapsulate everything, five of which are based directly from MoM:
    • Life
    • Nature
    • Order
    • Arcana
    • Chaos
    • Death
    Spoiler
    Show
    Life complements Nature and Order, and apposes Chaos and Death.
    Nature complements Life, and apposes Order, Chaos and Death.
    Order complements Life, Death and Arcana, and apposes Nature, Chaos and Arcana.
    Arcana both complements and apposes Order.
    Chaos complements Death, and apposes Life, Nature and Order.
    Death complements Chaos and Order, and apposes Life and Nature.

    They each represent a variety of different things, too many for me to list here. Feel free to ask about them on this thread. Also, none of them are necessarily "good" or "evil", not even Life and Death: each and every one of them represents a different part of a cycle.

    Life and Death are probably the easiest to understand. One represents the "highs", and the other the "lows". Next are Nature and Chaos- both fundamental elemental forces. I would describe Nature as Enthalpy and Chaos as Entropy. One represents growth and the other destruction.

    The trickiest to describe are Order and Arcana. Both are really misnomers, but I've yet to come up with better names for them. You see, they both complement and appose each other at the same time. Order represents discipline, tradition, and stability. Arcana represents knowledge, adaptation, and change. They are mutually exclusive, but both dependent upon the other.


    The domains sort of replace alignments as well, in that a creature or character can belong to one of them and spells can specifically target creatures of a specific domain. However, unlike alignment this is as much if not more a function of "nature" than "nurture"; for example, an orc can no more become a Nature domain creature than it could become a gnome! (Which isn't to say it absolutely cannot be done, just that it would be very difficult or unusual. An orcish shaman might be a mix of Chaos and Nature, for instance.) Humans specifically are an exception to this, although it's still not total freedom...

    As for spells etc., there's no easy way to cut it. There's overlap in several areas, and while some domains nominally have exclusive access to some things, there's almost always loopholes and exceptions. I'd recommend reading this MoM spell compendium for a rough idea of what each domain's capabilities are. Except for Order, which doesn't do spells as much as other expressions of "magic", like physical prowess or technology -including (when mixed with Arcana) the "sufficiently advanced" variety and Magitek.



    Anyways, on to casting. Now, one of my inspirations is NetHack, and I like the system they use there.

    First off, I figure that hypothetically anyone can cast a spell the same way that hypothetically anyone can solve ordinary differential equations. That is to say, practically speaking it's not for everyone.

    Second, I want to remove all arbitrary limits on spellcasting such as "spells per day" and "eight hours of rest". Instead, let's say that you keep casting day and night if you want... And if you think you can keep up with the cant, and not make a mistake because you're tired.

    In fact, let's extend this rationalization to mages carrying spellbooks as well. The spells (usually) don't magically disappear from their mind after casting, it's just, well... YOU try memorizing a thousand lines of nonsense chants with accompanying gestures -and thought patterns while we're at it- and reciting them perfectly in the middle of combat without even a textbook.

    This requires removing arbitrary barriers for spell levels and such as well, though. A more logical obstacle would be to limit the knowledge of the powerful spells to secret grimories written by archmages of old, who of course know better than to trust such dangerous knowledge to apprentices. (Especially if miscasting scales with spell power.) Thus, a Disintegrate spell become a loot item no different from a +5 Vorpal Sword. Especially if neither are readily available on the open market.

    To keep this balanced, spells will probably take much longer to cast than in D&D. I'm looking at two rounds for a standard combat spell, an hour -sometimes a specific hour- for standard non-combat spells, and a (fort)night for the really big ones. There's room for common yet powerful spells that are less useful for the PCs, too; for instance a teleport that doesn't bring the caster along, and requires the aid of six trained acolytes.

    In all, I think it'll help the feel of the game too. If spells are hard to understand and/or written in code, perhaps even subtly hidden in books of all descriptions, then there's a logical reason for wizards to lock themselves in towers so that they can study uninterrupted. (Of course, there's also logical reason for PC wizards to go questing for better tomes...)


    Anyways, all of this logically leads to the conclusion that there's no fundamental difference between any sort of magic. Which would be technically true, in the way that they're no fundamental difference between thermodynamics and fluid dynamics. Here's where the domains will really come in: casting a spell in a domain you're aligned with is much easier than one you aren't. Players of course would get to choose their alignment during character generation, and perhaps a trait or two could make certain types of spells (like, say, blasting stuff) easier regardless of realm.



    I'll go out on a limb and guess that most of this has been done before in some shape or another, But the uniqueness of the system would lie in how realm alignment affects non-casters. (Or rather, non-primary casters.)

    I'm not entirely sure how to go about this, though. I'm currently thinking of something where there'd be be racial templates, and 6 sets of special/extraordinary/supernatural abilities specific to each realm. Picking stuff up cross-realm would certainly be possible, but would probably cost extra or be limited to a few choices or something.

    Whatever the case, though, these abilities would explicitly be as beyond the mundane as the spells that same-level mages are casting.



    So, I hope you enjoyed my random rant!

    I'll submit it now, to await the admiration, scoffing, comments, slander, or utter silence that awaits it. (Probably the latter...)
    Last edited by Geordnet; 2013-04-11 at 02:01 PM.

    ⌠┌___r-RcosΘ___
    ⌡└r+R-2rRcosΘ┘dΘ



  2. - Top - End - #2
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Amechra's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Where I live.

    Default Re: A Completely Hypothetical System

    I'm just going to say this...

    Are you reinventing Exalted? With built-in "morality"?
    Quote Originally Posted by segtrfyhtfgj View Post
    door is a fake exterior wall
    Let's play a game, shall we? Current Game: Soul Void. Updates Mondays, 6PM EST.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

    Default Re: A Completely Hypothetical System

    Quote Originally Posted by Amechra View Post
    I'm just going to say this...

    Are you reinventing Exalted? With built-in "morality"?
    Don't know. I'm unfamiliar with Exalted.

    ⌠┌___r-RcosΘ___
    ⌡└r+R-2rRcosΘ┘dΘ



  4. - Top - End - #4
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: A Completely Hypothetical System

    I like your domains a lot.
    They generalize magic for all and they make more sense than any other categorization and division I've seen so far.

    In general I can connect with most everything you display here, but I'm not sure how getting rid of spell levels would serve to improve anything - fluff or crunch.
    It is quite common in fantasy (including classic literature) that one needs to accumulate experience before having even the slightest player of casting certain spells.

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

    Default Re: A Completely Hypothetical System

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    I like your domains a lot.
    They generalize magic for all and they make more sense than any other categorization and division I've seen so far.

    In general I can connect with most everything you display here, but I'm not sure how getting rid of spell levels would serve to improve anything - fluff or crunch.
    It is quite common in fantasy (including classic literature) that one needs to accumulate experience before having even the slightest player of casting certain spells.
    Well, there'd still need to be something like a casting check to keep it balanced; it's just that now you can at least try to cast the spell you aren't ready for.

    ⌠┌___r-RcosΘ___
    ⌡└r+R-2rRcosΘ┘dΘ



  6. - Top - End - #6
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: A Completely Hypothetical System

    Quote Originally Posted by Geordnet View Post
    Well, there'd still need to be something like a casting check to keep it balanced; it's just that now you can at least try to cast the spell you aren't ready for.
    OK, but there should be a level of incompetence where the only possible result is "FAIL!".
    Projecting to 3.5, the chance for a 1st level Wizard to be able to cast a 7th level Wizard spell should be an absolute zero.

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

    Default Re: A Completely Hypothetical System

    Well, in what I'm envisioning it isn't that simple.

    I'm saying that there would be nothing stopping a 3rd-level wizard from knowing that 7th-level spell, but casting it is a different matter... (If he tried it, he'd almost certainly fail and/or die in the process.)

    ⌠┌___r-RcosΘ___
    ⌡└r+R-2rRcosΘ┘dΘ



  8. - Top - End - #8
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2012

    Default Re: A Completely Hypothetical System

    I like the idea. The same system as in Master of Magic is present in Heroes of Might and Magic, for example.

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: A Completely Hypothetical System

    Quote Originally Posted by Geordnet View Post
    Well, in what I'm envisioning it isn't that simple.

    I'm saying that there would be nothing stopping a 3rd-level wizard from knowing that 7th-level spell, but casting it is a different matter... (If he tried it, he'd almost certainly fail and/or die in the process.)
    I believe you should stay tuned and participate in the collaborative effort orchestrated by Ziegander, "Rewriting Reality".
    I'd like to see your ideas incorporated into the result rules somehow.

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

    Default Re: A Completely Hypothetical System

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    I believe you should stay tuned and participate in the collaborative effort orchestrated by Ziegander, "Rewriting Reality".
    I'd like to see your ideas incorporated into the result rules somehow.
    That certainly seems interesting. I'll consider joining in, although I'm hesitant because I know I'm often unintentionally overbearing. But it seems like it'll be a while before they get to magic, so I'll work independently for now.


    Right, so I want to talk a bit about alignment in this system. Every living (and unliving) creature has a number of 'spheres' (for lack of a better word) attributed to one or another of the realms of magic. The exact number varies, increasing the more "magical" a creature is. The more spheres it posesses, the more magic can affect it and vice-versa. (For example, a Paladin's smite bonus would be determined by how many Death and Chaos spheres the target possesses.)

    Spheres are assigned first based on race. Usually, the number of spheres from race is two or three. For anything which isn't a "creature of magic" (as in, mundane creatures), one of these will be Order. The second (and any additional) is determined by race and cannot be changed (except for Humans, which can be anything).

    Racial alignment is the point at which most beings stop. However, The PCs (and powerful NPCs) are not 'most beings', so they'll get additional spheres. These spheres have no affects whatsoever other than determining what skills/feats/abilities/spells a character can take, and how much they'd cost.

    Now, spells-by-realm is relatively easy, so I'm going to (vaguely) classify physical feats by realm:
    • Life: Feats of Valor
    • Nature: Feats of Wisdom (thought of a better word)
    • Order: Feats of Endurance
    • Arcana: Feats of Skill
    • Chaos: Feats of Strength
    • Death: Feats of Guile
    Last edited by Geordnet; 2013-04-08 at 01:02 PM.

    ⌠┌___r-RcosΘ___
    ⌡└r+R-2rRcosΘ┘dΘ



  11. - Top - End - #11
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: A Completely Hypothetical System

    Quote Originally Posted by Geordnet View Post
    Racial alignment is the point at which most beings stop. However, The PCs (and powerful NPCs) are not 'most beings', so they'll get additional spheres. These spheres have no affects whatsoever other than determining what skills/feats/abilities/spells a character can take, and how much they'd cost.
    Pardon me, but what do skills have to do with domains ?


    Quote Originally Posted by Geordnet View Post
    Now, spells-by-realm is relatively easy, so I'm going to (vaguely) classify physical feats by realm:
    • Life: Feats of Valor
    • Nature: Feats of Survival
    • Order: Feats of Endurance
    • Arcana: Feats of Skill
    • Chaos: Feats of Strength
    • Death: Feats of Guile
    I'm not sure I like this restriction... unless you're talking about very specific feats.
    But you said that everything revolves around the 6 domains, so this might get quite restrictive.
    Guess I'll just have to wait and see what you're cooking here.

    EDIT:
    Are there feats that are available to all domains ?

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

    Default Re: A Completely Hypothetical System

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    Pardon me, but what do skills have to do with domains ?



    I'm not sure I like this restriction... unless you're talking about very specific feats.
    But you said that everything revolves around the 6 domains, so this might get quite restrictive.
    Guess I'll just have to wait and see what you're cooking here.

    EDIT:
    Are there feats that are available to all domains ?
    It's part of the system concept; and with everything else it's just hypothetical for now. You can skip it if you want, I'm just spouting out my thoughts.

    Anyways, this is more for a points-buy system like GURPS. And most things would be available regardless of alignment; it's mainly things that would be considered class features in DnD that would be barred.

    ⌠┌___r-RcosΘ___
    ⌡└r+R-2rRcosΘ┘dΘ



  13. - Top - End - #13
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: A Completely Hypothetical System

    Quote Originally Posted by Geordnet View Post
    It's part of the system concept; and with everything else it's just hypothetical for now. You can skip it if you want, I'm just spouting out my thoughts.

    Anyways, this is more for a points-buy system like GURPS. And most things would be available regardless of alignment; it's mainly things that would be considered class features in DnD that would be barred.
    Oh, OK then.
    I'll stay tuned.

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

    Default Re: A Completely Hypothetical System

    Hm... I think I'll go further on the idea of applying the spheres to everything, not just magic.

    So, I'm going to start by assuming that this will become an entirely new system. Something classless with a points-buy system for skills/abilities etc.


    Now, let's talk about ability scores. I have an idea, that's a bit radical but would also work well, I think.

    Now, let there be the following six abilities (I think I'll call them "Inclinations"):
    • Valor
    • Cunning
    • Stoicism
    • Skill
    • Fury
    • Guile

    Looks familiar, doesn't it? They match up with the six domains of magic.

    But here's what makes them special: none of them represent any one specific characteristic. Each and every one of them carries with it several different connotations. Including both physical and mental qualities (the balance between them does shift, though).

    The idea is that each Inclination represents a set of attributes optimized to a specific archetype. What to play a Paladin? Go for Valor. A Barbarian? Definitely Fury. A Dashing Swordsman? I'd guess Skill, maybe some Guile or even Valor mixed in. (The only exception would be Stoicism, which would be needed more by melee types and less by casters.)

    So, this system would fulfill the functions of both the class and attribute systems in D&D. Actually, it could even replace the alignment system as well... After all, it makes sense that the paladin archetype and rogue archetype would be stereotypically opposed to each other.

    ⌠┌___r-RcosΘ___
    ⌡└r+R-2rRcosΘ┘dΘ



  15. - Top - End - #15
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: A Completely Hypothetical System

    Quote Originally Posted by Geordnet View Post
    Now, let there be the following six abilities (I think I'll call them "Inclinations"):
    • Valor
    • Cunning
    • Stoicism
    • Skill
    • Fury
    • Guile
    Cunning & Guile seem like the same thing to me.

    Also, I'd use "Inclinations" in addition to ability scores, not instead.
    If I must break it down to 6 ability scores, I'd go for:
    - Strength
    - Dexterity
    - Agility
    - Intelligence
    - Willpower
    - Personality

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

    Default Re: A Completely Hypothetical System

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    Cunning & Guile seem like the same thing to me.
    They should. The point is to have plenty of overlap.

    In this case, Cunning makes you a better Ranger and Guile makes you a better Thief. There's a significant amount of synergy between them. (Which should make "mix and match" easier. Say, if you want to play a bandit who lives in the woods or something.)


    EDIT:
    The theory behind this is that if you can define your character as a mixture of half a dozen different archetypes, then this system will accommodate it easily. Why would you need an additional layer of complexity (as in, ability scores) if you can have a system that directly corresponds to character concept?
    Last edited by Geordnet; 2013-04-10 at 01:04 AM.

    ⌠┌___r-RcosΘ___
    ⌡└r+R-2rRcosΘ┘dΘ



  17. - Top - End - #17
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: A Completely Hypothetical System

    Quote Originally Posted by Geordnet View Post
    They should. The point is to have plenty of overlap.

    In this case, Cunning makes you a better Ranger and Guile makes you a better Thief. There's a significant amount of synergy between them. (Which should make "mix and match" easier. Say, if you want to play a bandit who lives in the woods or something.)


    EDIT:
    The theory behind this is that if you can define your character as a mixture of half a dozen different archetypes, then this system will accommodate it easily. Why would you need an additional layer of complexity (as in, ability scores) if you can have a system that directly corresponds to character concept?
    OK, then...
    - How do you intend to decide how much weight a character can carry/lift/drag...?
    - What are your intentions regarding stuff like HP, AC, attack rolls, damage, saving throws, conditions...?
    - Which inclination would affect which skill(s)?
    Does your proposed system address any of the above, or does it offer an entirely different set of mechanics?

    Also, if I wish to conjure in my mind a character's general physical makeup or mental capabilities, how do I do that using your inclinations?

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default Re: A Completely Hypothetical System

    Hmmm.... looking over your magical distinctions I find it a bit hard to parse out what types of magic are capable of what kinds of effects. Here's my impression:

    Life: "Holy" effects: healing, buffing, blessing, dispel evil. Cleric-type stuff.
    Nature: Good things that occur naturally. Water, earth, and plants. Maybe wind.
    Order: ?
    Arcana: Magical effects that affect other magical effects, and teleportation, and "generic" magical effects.
    Chaos: "spooky" effects. Fire, hell, twisting and corrupting.
    Death: "really spooky effects" death, disease, poison, decay, zombies, ghosts, the like.

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

    Default Re: A Completely Hypothetical System

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    OK, then...
    - How do you intend to decide how much weight a character can carry/lift/drag...?
    - What are your intentions regarding stuff like HP, AC, attack rolls, damage, saving throws, conditions...?
    - Which inclination would affect which skill(s)?
    Does your proposed system address any of the above, or does it offer an entirely different set of mechanics?

    Also, if I wish to conjure in my mind a character's general physical makeup or mental capabilities, how do I do that using your inclinations?
    Every one of those things would be affected by multiple inclinations to various degrees. Lifting/dragging would be both Stoicism and Fury. Being able to resist a compulsion effect would be mainly Valor and Skill. In both cases, other Inclinations would still affect it in a lesser degree.

    If you want to imagine what your character is like based purely on Inclinations, you're going to need some additional data. This system is designed to work the other way around; to give stats based on how you're imagining your character. Generally speaking, though, you can use the archetypes associated with each Inclination to help with your understanding of a character.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rephath View Post
    Hmmm.... looking over your magical distinctions I find it a bit hard to parse out what types of magic are capable of what kinds of effects. Here's my impression:

    Life: "Holy" effects: healing, buffing, blessing, dispel evil. Cleric-type stuff.
    Nature: Good things that occur naturally. Water, earth, and plants. Maybe wind.
    Order: ?
    Arcana: Magical effects that affect other magical effects, and teleportation, and "generic" magical effects.
    Chaos: "spooky" effects. Fire, hell, twisting and corrupting.
    Death: "really spooky effects" death, disease, poison, decay, zombies, ghosts, the like.
    Pretty close, although there isn't much in the way of "generic". The idea is that that there's a fair amount of overlap between what the different domains can do in terms of practical effects. So, all the domains have buffs, but Life has the most. All the domains can blast stuff, but Chaos does it the best. It's only a few select things that are specific to one or two domains, like healing or necromancy.

    Oh, and Order is specifically the realm with the least spells. It represents magic that takes a different form than a spell or incantation; the more subtle magic that allows people to perform awesome physical feats that aren't really physically possible (among other things). If I were to give it a spell list though, it would be mostly protection and warding stuff; probably. Maybe some of the "generic" stuff as well.

    ⌠┌___r-RcosΘ___
    ⌡└r+R-2rRcosΘ┘dΘ



  20. - Top - End - #20
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

    Default Re: A Completely Hypothetical System

    I should mention that Incinations could be considered a measure of potential, or possibly raw talent, more than anything else. I'm imagining that an average person would have three or four, while a PC would get ~6. These would be set at character generation, and can't really be increased in any way. Doing so would require a literal infusion of power of some sort.

    Character advancement would occur via XP and the gain of new abilities. I'm imagining a system where abilities self-advance each level, or something, while you choose a new ability each level. Or maybe not, it might be better to allow players to let one ability languish in favor of others...

    ⌠┌___r-RcosΘ___
    ⌡└r+R-2rRcosΘ┘dΘ



  21. - Top - End - #21
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

    Default Re: A Completely Hypothetical System

    I had a long post, but lost it.

    Long story short, I'm considering cutting out any sort of spell that takes less than a minute to cast. So, that makes wizards a support role, not glass cannons.

    Which feels much more 'right', I think. After all, that's the sort of role wizards almost always plays in myths and legends. It's the role that Gandalf and Merlin played; the two most famous wizards that D&D wizards can't properly emulate.

    ⌠┌___r-RcosΘ___
    ⌡└r+R-2rRcosΘ┘dΘ



  22. - Top - End - #22
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    nonsi's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: A Completely Hypothetical System

    Quote Originally Posted by Geordnet View Post
    I had a long post, but lost it.

    Long story short, I'm considering cutting out any sort of spell that takes less than a minute to cast. So, that makes wizards a support role, not glass cannons.

    Which feels much more 'right', I think. After all, that's the sort of role wizards almost always plays in myths and legends. It's the role that Gandalf and Merlin played; the two most famous wizards that D&D wizards can't properly emulate.
    Don't get fixated on niches.
    Gandalf was only a part mage. He was also a fierce combatant. Also Middle Earth settings has no clear distinction between class and race (mortal men could never rise to Gandalf's power there).
    As for Merlin - he was a utility mage. That's legit, but shouldn't be imposed.

    OTOH, I totally agree that D&D spellcasters are way too powerful in combat and have too many offensive options.
    This seems like a decent baseline for level of power to start from.
    Being somewhat familiar with eftexar's power-level preferences, I suggested the spell-knowledge repertoire given there, but I'd personally give it a bit more.
    I'd also make each Esoteric Academia grant a free spell that doesn't count toward the Spells-Known limit.
    I'd also allow trading Infusion feats for spells, so that players that prefer versatility over raw power could also have their way.
    Lastly, I prefer an hourly mana-pool recovery (even if partial), since it's very thematic that a mage needs to rest after concentrated spell effort before s/he can make another concentrated spell effort (and I strongly oppose the 15-min-workday approach).

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

    Default Re: A Completely Hypothetical System

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsi View Post
    Don't get fixated on niches.
    Gandalf was only a part mage. He was also a fierce combatant. Also Middle Earth settings has no clear distinction between class and race (mortal men could never rise to Gandalf's power there).
    As for Merlin - he was a utility mage. That's legit, but shouldn't be imposed.
    Well, I actually don't see the problem with "imposing" a less direct magic system. Sure, you and most others would probably balk at first, but would it really detract from the game?

    The only thing it'd really do is nerf what's widely recognized as the most OP base class in the game; which is really adding to it in my opinion.

    Besides, if you don't agree you can just play a different system. This system is sacrificing inclusiveness to better cater to its specific focus.


    As for niches, the concept I'm working on sort of revolves around them. Each area of focus is a specific niche, and if you want a character that can fulfill multiple niches then you diversify. (In case it matters, I'm already certain this system would be classless.)
    Last edited by Geordnet; 2013-04-11 at 12:00 AM.

    ⌠┌___r-RcosΘ___
    ⌡└r+R-2rRcosΘ┘dΘ



  24. - Top - End - #24
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2010

    Default Re: A Completely Hypothetical System (PEACH)

    You know, one other thing I liked about MoM is how they did attack and defense.

    Every unit had an attack value, and each point of attack had a 30% (base) chance to inflict 1 point of damage. Likewise, each point of defense had a 30% (base) chance to prevent 1 point of damage to a unit.

    I like this system because it had a unique probability curve for damage. Systems with separate to-hit/damage rolls (like D&D) have a probability curve that isn't continuous, with a sudden break between little damage and no damage. This way has much less of an abrupt drop at zero, and the curve itself is much closer to Gaussian.


    I wonder how this could be adapted to an RPG. I'd like to hear your ideas.

    ⌠┌___r-RcosΘ___
    ⌡└r+R-2rRcosΘ┘dΘ



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •