What follows is the VERY basic framework (specifically, a space opera style game, though I'm trying to keep the framework generic enough to adapt to magic, tech, and so on) for a conversion of homebrew material to Pathfinder, but uses an alternate method of powers/spells/etc with "no levels" or vanacian-style memorization. The final version will determine the theoretical and practical DPR expectations for designing the framework for PC and NPC (or monster) creation and associated charts.
I'd appreciate examination of said framework, to include constructive criticism and suggestions to assist in balancing said framework (and not to be rude, but I'm not interested in suggestions to use another system - this is the homebrew forum, afterall).
Power Framework (Tech/Psi/Force/Spell)
I've tried to keep everything brief and generic, also providing a few sample "effects".
Again, constructive criticism, comments, and any questions are appreciated.
This sounds like a very ambitious project. I don't want to discourage you, but I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to achieve with this.
Spell levels have the advantage of benchmark spells that establish a baseline as to what a spell should be able to do.
If you throw that out, you will still have to come up with a way to rank secondary effects.
Then there is the fact that different sources of damage are ranked (force is better than fire, elemental damage is better than non-magical weapon damage, etc.). The same is true for different area patterns (spread is better than line, etc.).
Then you have to take into account non-instantaneous effects like wall of fire and acid fog.
Keying damage cap to casting time is an interesting idea (I assume it represents charging a spell up). Not being able to use quickened spells seems like a nerf at higher levels (maybe you could introduce an option that allows to cast more spells per round at higher levels).
I agree with Amanuensis. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to accomplish. It looks like you're looking to homogenize spellcasting into a "damage + secondary effect" paradigm. Even assuming you wanted to make a game with mostly damaging spells, offensive spells have much more balance parameters than damage and range.
Have you ever heard of Spheres of Power? It should be coming out in a month or so and might be something you would be interested in.
The intent behind removal is appreciated, but in this case Rain was joking around with me, so no worries.=)
non-instantaneous?
i like the general idea that action type matters, but the specific idea about it being the 'cap determiner' i am not sure of.
if it is kept, consider simply 5 max dice per action cumulative, eschewing the table altogether.
do you have structural stat differentiation? or will that be fluid/dependent on class?
o btw please stop playing pathfinder...
At the moment, for the caster-specific classes the idea is they'll be able to breach these caps, effectively treating each action as one step lesser. I'm going to use Star Wars terms, but ONLY to illustrate an example.
A jedi guardian (20th level), which is very fighter-esque decides to expend 1 point of Force to effectively pounce his target. Lets assume he's attacking a Jedi Consular (also 20th level), which is very much like a full caster in most respects. He leaps and performs a full attack, significantly damaging the consular. Since the consular did not use a force power on the previous turn, he decides to expend his swift action in the form of an immediate, which normally would heal anyone else for 5 dice of damage. Due to a class feature, he is able to heal 10 dice of damage instead.
Does the example make more sense or just confound the issue further?
As far as stats go, they're going to be along the lines of the standard d20 iterations; magic/psionic/force caster classes will rely primarily on mental attributes and melee will rely on physical, but will have access to the magic/psionic/force abilities at a lesser degree. For mundanes, the base framework will function to reflect technological advancements/gadgets/what have you of similar scale and ability.
This sounds like a very ambitious project [...]
Not being able to use quickened spells seems like a nerf at higher levels (maybe you could introduce an option that allows to cast more spells per round at higher levels).
It is and I have no illusions it will be complete anytime soon. The idea is divorce "spell levels" from the powers and/or abilities used. In otherwords, instead of having spell chains charm person -> charm monster - > dominate person -> dominate monster, one spell, which can scale with "caster levels" or even ranks in a particular knowledge (such as arcana in this example) which serve the same purpose as levels. Feat chains which scale based on BAB are a good example of what I'm trying to say, I think.
From a game design perspective, I -think- using this method will follow suit with the "spell level X should have Y effect" paradigm. Regarding spells such as acid fog and wall of fire, I'll try to design a couple to illustrate the idea, which you, Rain, and Cyrad point out is missing which will hopefully better illustrate the idea.
Action type determine effect does, in some respects, represent exactly what you assumed. You're right on the money and you're solution in quotation is exactly what I planned to do when I begin developing the "caster" classes. As above, I'll see if I can get some solid representations out there for you and others to examine.
I agree with Amanuensis. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to accomplish. It looks like you're looking to homogenize spellcasting into a "damage + secondary effect" paradigm. Even assuming you wanted to make a game with mostly damaging spells, offensive spells have much more balance parameters than damage and range.
Have you ever heard of Spheres of Power? It should be coming out in a month or so and might be something you would be interested in.
There is definitely some homogenization going on, and I would definitely consider this a "alpha" stage. The utility spells haven't been included yet, but as with Amanuensis and Rain above, I'll see what I can do to get some examples out ASAP (with consideration to doctor visits, halloween, and my natural laziness). The range of most spells is going to be significantly less than that of your standard 3.x iteration. I'll try to get my chart up tonight for what I'm considering.
I haven't heard of it (spheres of power), but I'll call upon the great and powerful Google and see what it's about; I appreciate you directing me to it.=)
This reminds me a lot of Star Wars Sage Edition's Force powers.
This reminds me a lot of Star Wars Sage Edition's Force powers.
Good catch! I took the idea of how one gains "spells" directly from it. I have never liked the use of skills rolled against attributes / saves / etc, however, so divorced it from that right off the bat and associated it with caster level.
i bring it up because whereas my right-brain loves tables, my left-brain loves simple rules.
I may do both in the final draft. I am a bit too fond of tables, I'll admit, but that's due to the fact they can remove any question of intent, where as many textual explanations I write sometimes come off as ambiguous or vague.
---------------------------
I added in "Wall of Fire" to provide an example for those who asked above, and I'm still working on "Acid Fog". While I don't intend to use either of these types of spells in the homebrew setting (which is more psi/tech), I really thought those examples would be very useful in showing how I think it should work.
Its been a busy week with doctor's appointments, Halloween coming up (it is bigger than Christmas at our house) & getting costumes ready, and so on, but should calm down shortly. I'll try to get a class or two up as well as more examples.
So, I finally got around to check out the force power rules from Star Wars Saga by which your system seems to be inspired (somehow, my gaming groups never played that version of the game). Compared to the magic rules in Pathfinder, it is a very simple system, and I am afraid it would be too simplistic for my taste.
That being said, I would like to see some streamlining in relation to utility spells, for example feather fall/levitate/fly/overland flight could be different versions of the same spell. The 'undercast' option introduced in the Occult Adventures Playtest might offer a possibility to tie these spells closer together.
I'm afraid I don't have anything helpful to add beyond that.
I appreciate the comments, and yeah, I've not been ignoring the thread so much as thinking on the system. I'd considered, at one point, making combat "spells" work as in the linked document, with utility as talents, though I'm not entirely sure I like that idea, either.
Spells are combat, talents are utility? I kind of like that.