K. David Ladage's page

73 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 73 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Good-bye all.

Reading Alpha 1.1; reading the posts on the boards; reading it all... what 3.5 devolved into and what Paizoi is writing is simply not what I want in a D&D-style experience.

It is not that it is bad (it is not) or that the suggestions are (they are not). It is that it is not what I want. Nothing wrong with that. I have been hyper-aware of the fact that what I want and what I am generally looking for and what most other gamers want and what they are looking for symply do not mesh.

So... I will stick with GURPS for most things, and BX D&D or Basic Fantasy RPG for the rest... (with the occasional splash of Classic LBB Traveller, True20 and M&M to round things out).

You guys enjoy. And I wish the best to all involved. I may even pick up the book when it is published.

Until then: so long, and thanks for all the fish... er... wait a minute... ;)


hmarcbower wrote:
K. David Ladage wrote:
At least someone seems to understand what I am getting at. ;)
Why do people, when others don't immediately say "what a great idea", assume that people don't understand?

Why, when someone says they are happy someone understands what they are saying, others have to assume arrogance on the part of the original idea's conceiver?

I based that comment on the fact that many have made comments that are suggesting that they did not understand, or dismissed without fully reading the comment... especially since, in other threads they would suggest things that were strikingly similar to the idea as proposed.

:)

hmarcbower wrote:
As though if they did understand they couldn't possibly disagree... :)

You can certainly disagree. I have no problem with that.

hmarcbower wrote:
Anyway... I think this could be an overly complicated mechanic. The "fluff" around why you get the boost at the beginning of a career (ie. max HP, 4x skill points) is that presumably what you've been doing with your life up until that point has been working toward learning all you need to learn until you're "qualified" as a <insert class here for level 1>.

Right. You are at level 0 -- effectively -- prior to that.

hmarcbower wrote:
If you separate it out for pre-class skill points... what skills can you take? Are they all considered class skills, or how do you know which ones are class and which are cross-class?

In other threads I have already suggested removing entirely the distinction of "class skills" and "cross-class skills" as this *the* mechanic that creates too much complexity in the skill-point system, by making the order of skill acquisition matter in the creation of higher-level NPCs.

hmarcbower wrote:
I definitely see what you're trying to get to, but I'm not sure this is the right way to go.
Quote:

Fair enough.

hmarcbower wrote:
If you wanted to you could always say "everyone gets one level of expert for free" and go from there. I like what you're trying to do, but I think it unnecessarily complicates the character creation process.

I disagree, obviously. And I would *not* say that a level of expert is the way to go here. That would be overly cumbersome, in that the rules would (presumably?) be different for monsters than they are for PCs.

hmarcbower wrote:
As for the saves... we, a couple years ago, went with the fractional calculations from Unearthed Arcana. It stops the silliness of the save boosting when you flip into multiple classes with overlapping good saves.


At least someone seems to understand what I am getting at. ;)


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
There is no real issue with the pathfinder xp system.

I disagree. It has the same issues as all iterations of D&D. Not that it is something that has to be fixed. It is just something that *can* be fixed. And since it *can* be fixed without causing any compatability issues... it seems like something that *should* be fixed. But that is just my opinion.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
It works fine.

Sure. If you like the idea of an experience point system that continues to reward the things that every single iteration of D&D has (primarily) rewarded. Then it works just fine. I agree. But it requires no effort (or little) to make it much, much more flexible, less complex, and more accomodating the various styles of play.

Paizo's call.


I have posted some notes on these very forums on an idea for a very, very simple and intuitive XP system that would require *no* charts, *no* memorization, *no* complicated calculations, and so on.

I think simplifying XP is a good idea. And I think I have demonstrated that it can be done without much trouble.


Let us consider the impact of the "CON" hit points at a virtual "Level 0".

* Characters have more hit points.

This one is obvious. It will take more than a single swing from a sword (barring a critical hit) to kill the average citizen. This is good.

* Monsters have more hit points.

This one is not obvious. In fact, given some of the posts in this thread, it is obvious to me that some people are either not seeing this, or not realizing it, or ignoring it. For the most part, I would say that it is a disconnect between what is the rule's purpose ("First level characters have too few hit points; how do we fix this?") and the method ("Add in a virtual level 0 with hit points equal to CON score.")

The method, in order to work, must also be applied to races other than those involved in adventuring. In other words, *all* critters have this baseline number of hit points. It is integral to the nature of hit points. It is important.

So, let's look at how many hit points a typical monster should have under such a system. My initial thinking is this:

* Medium Sized Creatures have CON starting hit points.

This is easy enough. Makes sense. So what about others?

* This is modified in the same way as lifting capacity (encumbrance).

This was chosen simply because it is a chart already designed to reflect the differences in size as it relates to Strength (ie; Strength 10 on a medium sized creature is not Strength 10 on a Colossal creature). So use this same chart (consistancy is a good thing) when dealing with Constitution (ie; Constitution 10 on a medium sized creature is not Constitution 10 on a Colossal creature).

So, for example, looking in the v3.5 Monster Manual, how does this impact a couple of critters listed in this thread:

Goblin: Small (x3/4), CON 12, 1st level Warrior = 9 plus 1d8+1 = 14 hp

Orc: Medium (x1), CON 12, 1st level Warrior = 12 plus 1d8+1 = 17 hp

Ogre: Large (x2), CON 15, 4th level Giant, Toughness = 33 plus 4d8+8 = 60 hp

Note: Ogres are 4hd creatures; this is an "equivalent" of a level in a class (since, for all intent and purpose, each creature type is nothing more than a class in D&D v3.x). If you want a "non-experienced" Ogre, remove the 4d8+8 hit points, and leave him at a "mere" 33 hit points to start.

One more example:

Red Dragon (Great Wyrm): Colossal (x16), CON 31, 40th level dragon = 496 plus 40d12+400 = 1156.

Honestly... given that a 20th level fighter with a CON of 18 -- under the 3.5 system -- has an average of 20d10+80 = 190 hit points (and would only have 18 more under this system)... this does not seem out of line at all.

I hope this clears some things up.

The idea of raising the hit points at level 1 (via a virtual level 0) was not to give players more hit points in relation to critters; it was (in my mind) to give players more hit points and reduce the chances of one stray hit ending a career early.

Just my thoughts.

And with this, I am done in this topic (not a bad thing -- I have just said all I can say on it, to be honest) unless someone has a specific question they want me to answer.


I disagree.

Scaling feats are not a good idea, in my opinion. Let us take the example of the Dodge Feat you propose: +1 bonus to AC; an additional +1 bonus for every 5 levels you happen to be. So at level 20, I get +1+4=+5.

So if I take it at level 1, I get a +1 bonus. Without taking any additional feats, this feat improves on its own at level 5, granting me a +2. It increases again at level 10, and level 15, and level 20. This has transformed this into a pseudo-class feature. It is not a feat any longer.

However, even worse, if someone else who has not had this schtick for their career takes it at level 20, they suddenly have the same +5 bonus to AC -- skipping all of the "training levels" I went through to get here.

I am much more apt to agree to seeing something like a feat tree for scaling (like the scaled toughness feats from one of the early splat-books). In other words:

Dodge -> Improved Dodge -> Ghost Dodge -> Untouchable Dodge

Or some such... if you want this thing to improve, take a new feat. Make it a signature part of who you are. Do not turn feats into psuedo-class features.


Wicht wrote:

I saw this idea when it was first posted and actually like this system quite a bit. Nevertheless I imagine some really creative people could figure out a way to abuse it.

The main point I think I was trying to make though is that XP should always be a matter of DM fiat and it seems to me, even in a simple system like the one you suggest, the DM must adjucate the difficulty of the encounter.

First, I am glad you liked it.

Second, it is true... the DM has to adjucate the difficulty of the encounter. But I consider this a strength, to be honest, of the system. I consider it this way, because the encounter likely had to be adjucated prior to play already.

And, given that circumstances can alter the level of difficulty an encounter *actually* winds up being, being able to easily have some guideline as to how to alter the XP reward seems quite in keeping with good game mastering.

Last: it allows for *any* aspect of the game to be defined as a challenge and guaged for XP reward, depending upon the tone of the game.

Just my $0.02 worth. I'll shut-up now. :)


I think I am fair at defining that in the various posts I have made. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask.


Wicht wrote:
There are too many potentials within the game for xp rules to cover them all.

Depends on what form of XP system turns out to be final.

Suppose, for example, you had an XP system that said that you needed 20 XP to advance to the next level. Then, at the end of each game session the GM awarded XP based on the challenge of the session -- not the CR of the creature, but the level of challenge the session was for the characters to get past the obsticles involved.

So, hand out...

0 XP = Trivial
1 XP = Easy
2 XP = Moderate
3 XP = Hard
4 XP = Very Hard
5 XP = Extremely Hard

Then, throw in a bonus of +1 or +2 for exceptional roleplaying or story-based rewards.

When they reach 20 XP, then "spend" them and you advance to the next level with 0 XP remaining.

In such a system, the GM has the ability to adjust things per the game he/she is running. And... if you want a faster advancement, allow it to be 15 XP that needs to be spent; if you want a slower, raise it up to 30 XP... if you want old-school, then make it 5xLVL to advance -- 5 XP to get from level 1 to 2; 10 XP to get from level 2 to 3; 15 XP to get from level 3 to 4; 20 XP to get from level 4 to 5; and so on.

This allows a lot of flexability, and does not force in some arbitrary XP scale.


I am fairly close to that myself. The people here are, from what I can see, generally looking for a different game experience than I am.

I will stick around for a while. But I am fairly certain at this point that what Paizo comes up with will not be what I am looking for.


Amen, brother.


Zelligar wrote:

The [CON Score + max HP] method of starting HPs suffers, to a lesser extent, from the INT ability score increase-skill points problem.

Just a small addition problem, but I predict it would be a common mistake when statting up creatures/characters higher than 3rd level.

True.

The phrasing would be something akin to "a loss of -1 CON modifier will result in the loss of 1 hit point, plus an additional hit point per level; a gain of +1 CON modifier will result in the gain of 1 hit point, plus an additional hit point per level."

This is certainly clumsy.

But... I think that having virtual "0-level" characters with a number of hit points smooths out the HP curve. Level 2 chartacters are *rediculous* in their gains in HP as a percentage of the baseline. In fact, the curve is (roughly):

Level 1 = baseline
Level 2 = L1x2.00
Level 3 = L2x1.50
Level 4 = L3x1.33
Level 5 = L4x1.25
Level 6 = L5x1.20
Level 7 = L6x1.17

and so on. Having an additional 1, or 2, or even 3 HD at level 1 (via the virtual level 0) would make Level 2 not seem like such an unseemly jump.

But I can certainly understand if this is not something that the powers that be want to do.


I am unable to formulate a decent way of saying just how much I disagree with the original poster in this regard.

The best I can come up with is this: Damage Spells do not need to be increased in power... spells that overshadow them need to be toned down. Nothing, and I do mean nothing, should be an automatic SAVE OR DIE effect.

Nothing.

So... I will leave it at that.


Piazo is a well known company in the D&D/d20 community.

They make an annoucement that they will not be going with WotC down the 4e path. They are going to create a new "core set" of books to kee 3.x alive.

They then open the playtest of said material to *everyone*.

Was this sort of "you shold include X" and "anything dealing with Y needs to be changed to Z" discussion not expected? I certainly know why, for example, Steve Jackson Games limits playtest participation and the like. Unless someone has a *lot* of time wade through the material and pick out the signal from the noise... it will be a source of confusion for many.

But if someone does have the time to wade through it all... then this is fine. Bear in mind that, the further along this goes, the less the participation is likely to be. People will slow down and things will reach a more manageable speed.

Oh... and even the stuff many feel is off-topic has been enjoyable to read thus far. Some of it is even enlightened and inspired.


Not so sure it is a good idea. For example, where would suggestions on Starting Hit points be? The Alpha document asks for this, but anything suggested is likely to diverge into the "new rules" territory pretty quickly.

How about the stuff dealing with dringe elements of the Alpha document? Much, if not all, of this is startin very, very close to the new rules realm, and will easilly move into it.

I am not saying that there are not a few areas in the posts so far that are not off topic. They are there. But most of it is good grist for the wheel.

Oh... and if you are not one of the designers and you are trying to keep up on all 10K+ posts... then, well, good luck.


I agree... the man was, if anything, LN.


My last post in this thread appears to have never shown up... so if you see this and it is the second time, you know why.

Suggested new DODGE feat:

DODGE
You receive a +1 dodge bonus to AC; additionally, you receive a +1 dodge bonus to your Reflex save.

Thoughts?


OK... how about this.

DODGE
Combat Feat
You recive a +1 dodge bonus to your Armor Class anytime your DEX bonus would apply, and a +1 dodge bonus to your Reflex Save.

Just a thought.


IMHO:

Dodge should simply be: You receive a +1 dodge bonus to AC; this bonus applies anytime your Dex bonus would normally apply.

Done.

And the Alpha document is fairly close to this, so I have no trouble.


And yes... throw in the "level 0 skill points" and you eliminate the problems of "a rogue has rogue skill points x4" at level one, while " a fighter has fighter skill points x4" at level one.

Nope.

They would each have "racial skill points, plus class skill points" at level one.


Elf in Boots.... you are correct.

But... I would just say that each race has a racial HD + Con Mod. Thus, a halfling might have 1d4 as a racial hit die, and it would be modified per the Con Mod to the final racial hit points at level 0.


Thanks.


After some consideration and sdome playtesting.... this is my finl thought on what the starting HP for a character should be:

(Racial Hit Dice + Con Modifier) + (Class Hit Dice + Con Modifier)

In other words, as I was suggesting earlier (and in other threads), I feel a return to the idea of the "Level 0" character is a good idea.

I would assign hit dice racially as follows:

Frail Races: d6 or even d4 (especially "smaller" races)
Humans: d8
Tough Races: d10 or even d12 (especially "larger" races)

Those are my thoughts to keep 1st level from being far too deadly, while allowing a maximum of backward compatability.


Personally, I'd like to see something much simpler. I have suggested this (in much more detail, and in retrospect -- much more difficult than such a system even needs to be) in one or two other threads, but the basics of it comes down to this:

State (for example) yu need 10 XP to advance each level. That's right: every single level, you need 10 XP to advance.

Now...

Each encounter, assign a value to it:

* Trivial encounter: 0 XP
* Relatively easy encouner: 1 XP
* Moderate encounter: 2 XP
* Relatively challenging encounter: 3 XP
* Very difficult encounter: 4 XP
* Extremely difficult encounter: 5 XP

Difficulty can come from combat (i.e., "This encounter was about the same CR as your levels, and it made you think a little, so I will grant you all 3 XP.") or it cam come from story-based challenges (i.e., "Congratulations! You were able to successfully negotiate a trade agreement with the Orcs of the Northern Highlands! And you did it without embarasing the Elf-Queen. I award you 4 XP.").

If a single character does something noteworthy that adds to the enjoyment of the game... award that character a bonus XP. And so on.

The scale slides on its own. What was a Very difficult encounter at level 3 ("Oh no! A dozen orc Warriors!" suddenly becomes a moderate or even relatively easy encounter at level 6, and might even be trivial at level 9.

Now, I know I have said that the place to speed up or slow down advancement is in the rewards. But in thinking about it, I think that is you use a mechanic where you "spend" the XP to advance -- meaning when I acquire 10 XP, I "spend them" and become a level 2 character with 0 XP -- then allowing the game master to simply state that in his/her campaign, you have to spend 12 XP, 15 XP, 20 XP... or perhaps 8 XP, 6 XP, or 5 XP... allows the GM some ability to speed up or slow down the campaign.

In fact, for an "old school" feel, you can say that the amount of XP needed to advance to the next level is equal to your current level times 5. So if you are 5th level, it will take 25 XP to advance to 6th... at which time it will take 30 XP to advance to 7th.

This has one other interesting side-effect: Action Points.

Some people have been asking to have action/fate/what-ever points added to the Piazo game. Cool! Add them in. But make them XP. Here is what I mean:

Suppose I have spent my XP and I am not at 3rd level. So I adventure some more and I have 4 XP toward my advancement to 4th level. And I am in the midst of a really tough situation and want to use an action point to {insert use fo action point here}. Fine. I now have 3 XP, as my XP *are* my action points.

Thoughts?


Keep skill points (but eliminate the concept of "cross class skills" entirely).


Looking at the Alpha 1.1 document, I would like to propose (again) some sort of "level 0" mechanic. It need not have the three age brackets above (that is cool, I think, but not needed).

To recap:

* SKILLS -- at level 0, a character has a racially-based set of skill points (or skill selections, per the new system) that replace the original 3.x "+3" segments dealing with skills. << i.e., at first level you had x4 skill points, which can also be written as skill points for level+3>> <<i.e., you have a skill point limit of level+3, so as a 0-level character, you have a maximum of 3 ranks in any skill>>

* HIT POINTS -- at level 0, a character has a racially-based hit point total. I was operating off of consistancy with the "+3" assumptions, but 1 HD or 2 HD would work. Using 1 or 2 HD, I might say (for example) that a human at level 0 has 1d8+CON hit points (or 2d8+2xCON hit points), and then gets the standard class hit die if they take that. A Dwarf might get 1d10+CON (or 2d10+2xCON, as a sturdier race), and an Elf might get 1d6+CON (or 2d6+2xCON, as a frail race), or what-have-you.

This gives you 2-levels of frailty below human (ie: d4 and d6) as well as 2-levels of sturdiness above human (ie: d10 and d12). I could see Half-Orcs as a d10 race, with full-fledged Orcs in the d12 range.

Creatures in the Monster Manual that had, for example, 4 HD would treat those 4 HD as the "racial, pre-class" hit points, just as humans would now be considered 1 (or 2) HD baseline creatures...

Again... just a thought.


CyricPL wrote:
If I read one more "lots of paladins, evil chaotic, whatever" post my head might explode ... Yes, I get where the people are coming from, and I actually agree ... except that it doesn't need to be core. All core needs to have is good, old-fashioned vanilla Paladins.

I disagree.

If LG gets Paladin in as a core class, then the other eight alignments *should* get the same treatment. In my opinion.

If, however, we were to be designing things from scratch... I would say that all Paladin-like classes *should* be done as Prestige Classes. But that is just me, and breaks compatability.

Honestly... even if you just had a single "Holy Warior" class with "plug in abilities" and then called the "LG" version a "Paladin" I would be happy.

But this is not about me. This about Piazo. And all we can do is offer up our opinions.


Just a comment from my head to the boards:

Paladin != Knight.

A Knight has a liege lord; he serves his lord because that is what he does and he is obligate to this individual. That is lawful.

A Paladin (in the D&D/d20 sense of the word) has a belief; he serves he belief because that is what he believes in and he is dedicated to this diety/philosophy/etc. That is faith, and falls outside of the alignment structure.

Now... in dealing with compatability:

Paladin = Holy Warrior of LG.

Now... add in eight more names and follow the same overall template. Again -- I highly recommend the article A PLETHORA OF PALADINS.


Unless I am missing something, the currently proposed "saga/4e" system is amazingly... well... it's just plain too much.

Sure, it is simpler. But...

Consider how many skill points a class would have to mimic what is being done here. Unless I am missing something it is the equivalent of gaining one skill point per level per skill, as long as that skill is usable untrained (i.e., a "class" skill gets a point and goes up one rank; a "cross-class" skill gets a point and goes up one-half rank).

The best (subjectively, this is just my opinion) way to handle this whole skill thing is to eliminate the concept of "cross class" skills and hand out skill points as we have since 3.0 was released.

This "saga/4e" system is not an improvement in my opinion.


Locke1520 wrote:
The first question I have is why (aside from RP reasons) would you ever play a character younger than adult under this system?

You wouldn't. Never said you would, so I am not sure what you are asking here.

Locke1520 wrote:
Seems overly complicated for little actual gain and x4 hit points is excessive for many games.

Codifying an element that already exists in the game (the level+3 and pointsx4 mechanics) is overly complicated? I will respectfully disagree.

Locke1520 wrote:
If you really feel strongly about this system however I would recomend instead of full HD a 0 level character would get a static hp total per age category and no Con adjustment until they take either a commoner level or adventurer level.

Workable. Sure. I would prefer the ability to have some variety in the common-folk without classes. But taking the "average" of the dice would be a real possibility. So a human child would have 3 or 4 HP, adolescent 6 or 7 HP, and a young adult would have 10 or 11 HP. Or something like that.


Lord Magus wrote:
I actually like most of your idea, if only for its elegant coherence in allowing for "background" skills. The only problem I have is with the above: "racial HD" results in way too many hps.

If a human has a d6, this is an average of 10-11 HP for a young adult. How is this too many?

A first level human Fighter (d10) with a CON of 12 (+1/HD), under this concept would start with an average of 13-14 hit points from the "background" age levels, and then +7-8 from the fighter level -- a total average hit points at first level of 21 HP.

Compare this to the "double" starting (where all of the proposed systems would be "double max") where a first level fighter would get 2x(d10+1) = 22 HP.

So I ask again: how is this too many?

Lord Magus wrote:
You won't get any commoner vs housecats jokes, but then 6-year-olds will be able to take on goblin warriors....

You honestly believe that a human child (where I would have a 6-yr old) with a single d6 hit points, a CON score low enough to ensure that he has something like 2HP is going to take on a Goblin that is old enough to have a class level already?

Or am I missing something?

Lord Magus wrote:
unless you also adjust for goblin racial development.

The idea here is to have two/three age levels that represent early development. So yes, I could certainly see a Goblin as having 3d4 HP prior to taking on a class.

Lord Magus wrote:
But then, the backward compatibility is starting to take a fairly big hit IMO.

No more so that, say, the current Piazo version of the Fighter, or the double starting HP concept, or the loss of skill points currently proposed, or... well, you get the idea.


Quijenoth wrote:
The numbers do seem a little high, I'd consider making child 0 hit dice, adolescent 1 HD and young adult 2 HD. A child is still gonna get class HD on top.

No they would not. Read it again -- I am proposing the return of the Level-0 character. Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults are all *pre class* selection. A child has no class skills, hit points, or what-have-you.

Quijenoth wrote:
My biggest concern with this is age, what exactly happens when my 1st level child fighter becomes an adolescent at 5th level? or a young adult at 12th? and how would this affect my stats? a child is no where near as strong or as wise as an adult.

Again... this is not a concern, as you simply rule that prior to adulthood, a child/adolescent/young adult can have skills (perhaps even a feat), but they do not have a class.

Done.


True... a first level PC would have potentially a *lot* more HP. But I am not sure if I see this as a bad thing. The jokes of the "level 1 commoner vs. the housecat" would certainly go away.

Now... consider that if (for example) the idea of a human as a 3 x (d6+CON) is taken. This means that a human character has an average of 10-11 HP.

So... for PCs, just have them add +10 HP (+3xCON) if the idea of x4 potential HP bugs you. This number has certainly been bandied about a few times.


Wow... this is the first posting I have made here that has not been either immediately shot down or hailed.

Odd feeling.

;)


Aberrant Templar wrote:
Why not just make it so that any horse the paladin rides becomes "special"? It could become better immediately or after a period of time (24 hours, 3 days, 7 days, whatever).

I vote for 7 days.

If you need to ask why, you need to read more. ;)

(Uh... OK, OK... because the nunmber seven is the number of completion -- think week. Additionally, you could have an additional property that comes to the horse after 40 days... hehe but that could be a bit too much symbolism)


You can eliminate classes. Several OGL publishers have (M&M, for example).

But to be honest, it is not D&D any more if classes are gone. Thus, it is not d20 3.5 any more if classes are gone. Thus, it is ot worth removing them.


I have been thinking about a couple of things in dealing with D&D 3.x and something occured to me that might kill a few birds with one very simple, very minor change in the rules.

Bring back 0-level characters.

Now... before you laugh too hard, let me say one thing: D&D 3.5 already has 0-level characters, they just hide the fact and are inconsistant in how they handle it. Allow me to explain:

How many skill points does a 1st level character get? 4x the normal (the equivalent of level+3 skill points).

What is the skill-rank limit at 1st level? 4x level (level+3).

So... how about this:

After selecting the race of your character, prior to selecting the class of your character, you create the Level-0 version. My own thinking on this works like this:

Races are given a number of starting skill points (a relatively low number). These are independent of the class-based skill points, so the number of skill points available is race dependent.

Races are given a hit-die type. These hit dice are independent of the class-based hit dice, so the hit points generated are race dependent.

Now -- and here is the part I really like about this -- you define (in adition to the age brackets that characters have now) three more age brackets: Child, Adolescent, Yound Adult.

A child gets 1 racial hit die and 1x the racial skill points.

An adolescent gets 2 racial hit dice and 2x the racial skill points.

A young adult gets 3 racial hit diece and 3x the racial skill points.

Then you select a class and add to the class-based hit dice and skill points to the mix.

So... an example. Let us suppose that Humans have a d6 for their base hit dice; then lets assume that they have 4 skill points.

I decide to make a human. I generate 3d6 + 3xCON for starting hit points. I assign (3x4 + 3xINT) skill points (with a limit of no more than 3 ranks in any skill). Then, I decide to make this guy a fighter... I add 1d10+CON to the hit points and thow on the fighter's skill points and so on.

Thoughts?


My vote:

Keep the skill points (perhaps make the saga/4e skill system an optional sidebar).

Rid the system of class-skills and cross-class skills. Skills be skills be skills.


tussock wrote:
GURPS is that way ->. Have fun with it.

Thanks. I had almost forgotten about my extensive collection of books from Steve Jackson Games.

:)

GURPS -- Got, but do I love that game.


TabulaRasa wrote:
Kill/Gimp: Raise dead

D&D 4e, for all of its flaws, fixed this one very, very nicely, I thought. I would say that the 3.5 version could be fixed in a very similar way.

4e states (from what I have read) that Raise Dead (and some other spells, for that matter) only work on those that have a "destiny" or "fate" or "<insert metaphysical explination here>" that remains unfulfilled. So if the rich and powerful noble is not "one of the chosen few" then raise dead just has no effect on him. Player Characters, by default, have this spark within them and can be raised...


Nothing major, here. Just a few freelance writing projects for Sword and Sorcery, Steve Jackson Games, Grey Ghost, and most recently, ADB. I also self-published a few d20 books under the imprint Jagged Edge Games.


The last four D&D campaigns I ran, I let the player's chose how they wanted to handle stats.

The fist campaign of those four, they decided on 4d6/drop. This resulted in some seriously variant stats. Oh well. We decided against that next campaign.

The second campaign of those four, they decided on having each player get to assign the stats to 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 17 in the order of their chosing. This worked fairly well.

Half way through the second campaign, one player came up with an idea. He said that we should all set the modifiers to a total of +6. In other words, you could assign the INT mod to +3, but you would only have 3 more points to assign. All starting abilities would be even numbers.

We tried it in the third of those four campaigns. They liked it a lot.

In the last of those four, we did it again, then added a die roll. The die roll was to see if you were on the even or odd number of that stat mod (roll 1d6, even=even and odd=odd). So if you select a +1 mod, you were either a 12 or 13 -- so roll, even number the stat was a 12, odd number it was a 13.

Again -- this worked well.

Later we would find that this is very much like the True20 method.


Orion Kidder wrote:
I realise that right now, they're still bound by the original OGL, which means they can't explicitly talk about XP

The OGL has no restrictions on talking about XP. The d20 STL does. This game will not be using the d20 STL. They can talk about XP all they like.

Also... we have a few threads on XP. :)


orcdoubleax wrote:

I don't understand how anyone can be agaist the three XP charts.

You pick one at the start of the game and don't use the other two. Once you pick on it has no effect on your game. How in any way does this make your game more complex.

It is just 3 different list. can anyone explain how two extra lines of numbers. less then half a page in the book can hurt your game.

If you say that players will not remember which one to use then get smarter players because the ones you have are brain dead.

One: the problem (in my mind) is not that having three charts is confusing. It is that having three charts is unneccesary.

Two: if I have said it once, I have said it a dozen times: in my humble and easilly ignorable opinion, the place to adjust things is in the rate of XP being awarded, not with the amount of XP needed.

Three: I have even, based on other threads, come to the conclusion that -- if you want to handle the adjustment on the XP needed side of the equasion -- the best way to handle XP is to eliminate the long charts all together and simplify things to the core. In other words have the whole XP chart reduced to a single paragraph of rule that reads:

"The Game Master will set the rate of advancement by setting an amount of experience needed for a character to advance each level. The recommended amount of XP required to advance each level is 30 experience points. A faster paced game can be achieved with a 20 experience point rate (or even lower!); a slower paced game with a 40 experience point rate (or even higher!). Players should be awarded 0-5 XP per encounter based on the amount of challenge the encounter provided. 0-points for a trivial encounter, 3-points for an average -- moderately challenging -- encounter, 5-points for a very challenging encounter. "Encounter" in this case refers to dealing with monsters, traps, role-playing story elements, etc. The GM can also award players 0-5 bonus XP each session for good roleplaying."

Done.

Optionally, a side-bar note on how you can have a gradiated rate (XP needed for next level = NEW_LEVEL multiplied by a constant like 5 or 10) to get that old-school feel. A gradiated 5-point advancement would need an average of 2 encounters to reach 2nd level, 3 more encounters to reach 3rd level, 5 more encounters to reach 4th level, 7 more encountes to reach 5th level, and so on...


All of the discussion on these boards have me wondering: I think I will just grab my local copy of the SRD, copy it, modify it to match what I want... and be done with it.

Heck... I may even PDF the thing, load it up on LULU and have them print and bind my own personal home-brew version in a nice book.

Not for sale, mind you... just for me.

After all... it is obvious that the sheer number of ways people use this system make trying to please everyone impossible.

:)


CR is important in encounter design.

It does not need to be considered important at all in XP rewards.

Honestly... if we are revamping XP anyway... make it simple; make it quick; make it non-math intensive.

Include options of Roleplaying-based XP rewards... allow the game to support any and all play styles.


The hybrid "this is based off the assumption of gaining X ranks per level, X+3 at first level, and an additional Y+3 at levels Bla bla and bla, and keeping skills at there highest possible level. Players wishing to have more organic characters can instead spend ranks individually paying two ranks for a +1 to cross class skills" proposal is now on my "do the math and see if this works out the way I think it does" screen...


DeadDMWalking wrote:
K. David Ladage wrote:
Three: Eliminate the IQ mod to skill points. Some people arequite talented at a given skill or even set of skills without being highly intellectual. Allow for this.
I disagree with this point. Intelligence provides one benefit in the game to people who are not wizards - skill points. Compared to the abilities provided by Strength or Dex, or even Wisdom, having Intelligence modify skills is useful and makes the ability valuable, even for classes that don't use...

Good point. Consider that part of my original post canxed.


Acev wrote:
K. David Ladage wrote:
Two: Keep skill points. Allow characters to be different at the same level -- even when they are the same class. Allow them to specialize or generalize as they choose.

Is a fighter with 7 ranks in ride and 9 ranks in intimidate all that different from one with 9 in ride and 7 in intimidate? Will the other players and DM notice this difference during the game?

IMHO, no. The only differences ever noticed are the extreme ones.

Will they notice a difference between a fighter who is trained in ride and not in intimidate as opposed to one who is trained in intimidate and not in ride.

IMHO, yes.

Interesting point, and I fully understand what you are saying. I really do. But I could not disagree more.

Consider this:

If a 9th level Fighter with DEX 16 all that different from one with a DEX 18? Will the other players and DM notice this difference during the game.

By your logic, no. The only differences ever noticed are the extreme ones.

So why keep ability scores? Why not have "Trained in STR and CON" and leave it at that?

==
I realize that this is an extreme example of what I am trying desperately to say here... but I think it makes my point rather nicely.

1 to 50 of 73 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>