|
I am an AD&D player and would like to apply the PFRPG ethos and the d20 mechanic to a game with an AD&D core conception. I think it could be fun to have your help in so doing.
Core Principles:
I. Classes are truly framework-only and a new class is needed ONLY if an existing class cannot be role-played into the role intended. (Example: The Magic-User class is necessary because no conception of the Fighter can be role-played into a wizard; the barbarian/illusionist classes, on the other hand may not be necessary since a barbarian reflects a culture's view on being a fighter while an illusionist is a kind of magic-user.)
II. Each Die size has an association with a class and only the D20 is universal to all classes.
III. Character class 'balance' exists over the whole course of a character's career, not at any given level, per se, and the game exists to foment role-playing, not roll-playing.
IV. The D20 objective of 'roll a d20, add some modifier you have developed over your PCs career' should be followed as much as possible; side games should be minimized.
First, races. I don't see how the PFRPG mangled anything in the races section and so don't see much work to do here. I do think that there should some slight development of a PC's talents through the game on the basis of race; perhaps something on the order of a racial talent every five levels amounting to the benefit of a feat? Weapon Focus, for example, seems like a good one to throw out there: warhammer/hand axe (dwarf), longbow, longsword (elf), sling, short sword (halfling) etc.
Second, classes. Here is where a lot can change.
Magic-User: d4 for HD, d4 spell damage, d4 damage for daggers and staves, remove damage cap for levels (fireballs are 1d4/level, no limit, for example); Sorcerer becomes a sub-class of Magic-User by surrendering school benefits and ability to learn any spell in exchange for bonus spells/day and spontaneous casting.
Rogue: d6 for HD, d6 for Sneak Attack, d6 for spell damge, d6 for damage for short swords and short bows; Bard and Thief become sub-classes by essentially allowing each to pick up spells/skill points/rogue talents as they advance.
Priest: d8 for HD, d8 for healing spells, d8 for spell damage, d8 for damage for maces, hammers, and crossbows; Cleric, Paladin, Monk, and Druid become sub-classes swapping in spells, animal companions, martial artist skills, and holy warrior abilities as they advance with those abilities showing up at each level.
Fighter: d10 for HD, d10 for damage for two handed swords, great axes, etc.; BAB +1/level, Warrior, Ranger, Barbarian, Cavalier as sub-classes all with special abilities every odd level to offset low skill points, combat feat every even level and balance high hit points.
If it went forward with those four archetypes, or classes, is there a major role I am missing?
|
Might want to drop the d6 spellcasting for Rogues to d4 like Wizards, and also might want to change sneak attack, which in the d20 system is substantially better than Backstab. That really, really depends though on how you want to handle monsters, which seems from the other changes like you also will want to vastly lower their HP.
|
I like the "cleanness" and "simpleness" of this idea.
I already raised the question in my head though of "what if a player says 'yes, I know I'm playing a rogue, but how come when I hit with a great sword I deal d6 but when the fighter hits he deals d10?' and I easily answered myself with "because he is a fighter and knows how to use it better".
This could somewhat return the game a bit to its OD&D roots where all weapons dealt the same damage.. though not entirely. All weapons wielded by a wizard deal no more than d4, whereas the same weapon wielded by a fighter deals d10. Hell I wouldn't even care if the fighter did d10 damage with a dagger. This actually encourages more weapon diversity because the exact weapon isn't so dependent on what traits the weapon possesses and is more based on the player's idea of what is cool for his PC etc.
There's a lot of neat stuff that could be done with this. If you are interested in collaborating more heavily I'd love to be involved in exploring it. I'd even set up a Google Site and whatever other tools would be necessary for putting down notes etc.
Great stuff.
|
|
Tying weapon damage to class is a remarkably powerful idea for the melee classes, and might, on its own harden up the melee classes enough for the balance-centered.
It would also go a huge way towards making role-playing the center of attention.
What do we lose if we do that, aside from roll-playing min/maxing and perhaps some verisimiluted in the simulation aspects (although I think the explanation that a Conan with a dagger is deadlier than Harry Potter with a broadsword is pretty compelling)?
Tying weapon damage to class is a remarkably powerful idea for the melee classes, and might, on its own harden up the melee classes enough for the balance-centered.
It would also go a huge way towards making role-playing the center of attention.
What do we lose if we do that, aside from roll-playing min/maxing and perhaps some verisimiluted in the simulation aspects (although I think the explanation that a Conan with a dagger is deadlier than Harry Potter with a broadsword is pretty compelling)?
First off - LOVE the idea here. Brilliant stuff!
What do you lose? Hmm .. I'd think that limiting "magic" damage to 1d4 with no cap *might* make them seem even weaker. Sure, they have no "limit" on those d4's, but any similarly damaging spell cast by a priest will out-damage the wizard (as it stands), and that should be kept in mind, IMO.
Maybe, like a fighter, the Wizard's "magic" damage would be counted in d10's? (ie: the *BEST* in magic)
That you've made combat-types better w/weaponry is fantastic! I really love the idea even of Harry Potter w/a broadsword and Conan with a dagger for the "why" of how it works. It just makes sense.
However, as soon as you do the same to magic, I find the wizard wanting as with "magic" he should be the best, but his "best" is still the equivalent of his "worst" and there is another casting class and it out-damages him, out-armors him, and out-fights him ... so what does the wizard get for his magic boon? Currently - nothing. Nothing sets him apart from the fighty-types.
Now, a quick switch on magic-damage changes the wizard from "d4" weak dude to "d10" magic-dominant and still keeps it very simple, IMO. It makes things like magic missile and burning hands have more bite to them as well in those lower levels, and the upper ones, too (ie: improvement with level progressions).
I'm not sure of your thought on the older "only melee's get extra attacks" design, but you may very well revert to that for further emphasis on the melee's and their role vs. others and their role (ie: rogues would lose the iterative stuff, be maintain that extra flanking damage stuff - only usable 1/round anyway, no?)
Rogues become a support combat type (again) or an en'masse swarm style of combatants. Priests lose that outrageous power-gain they had (for having combat to match rogues, and additional attacks on top of it) - unless using the appropriate spell (as should be their limitation - they already get 2nd best HP, 2 good saves, and primary casting plus armor - they're really, too good as it stands, IMO). That would leave the fighty-types to keep their contribution as they did in the older versions by being the only class-type to get multiple attacks in a round - to keep pace with outrageous damage boons (rogues) and spells (both of the caster types). The combat-types really have nothing to compete with those spells or heavy damage additions, so their "bit" was multiple hits in the same given time.
Yeah - my vote's to revert to that older way of handling things, IMO.
What do you lose? Hmm .. I'd think that limiting "magic" damage to 1d4 with no cap *might* make them seem even weaker. Sure, they have no "limit" on those d4's, but any similarly damaging spell cast by a priest will out-damage the wizard (as it stands), and that should be kept in mind, IMO.Maybe, like a fighter, the Wizard's "magic" damage would be counted in d10's? (ie: the *BEST* in magic)
Why not make it 2d4/level to stay with the theme instead?
Zo
|
|
I'm a bit torn. Two things keep poping in my mind as possible issues. first about the Wizards d4/2d4. What if you made one of the specialties about Wizards so that they focus on one type of spell. It wouldn't be a school of magic, but rather a theme, like fire, cold, buffs, flight, etc. . .
Now, for the damage spells of that theme, what if they added an extra d4, with minor scalling, so like an additional d4 (+2d4 total) at 10, and every 5 levels thereafter. Obviously, themes without a lot of damageing spells would need another little fix, (maybe +1d3 to Dc, and +1 at 10th and 5 levels thereafter).
The other thing, weapon damage. How does that work with multiclassing? (Also, how much "old school" are you wanting here as far as generic multiclassing goes?). Should a Battle Priest build (75% War Cleric, 25%ish Fighter) use cleric or fighter Weapon damage?
|
|
I think one of the things that makes wizards "unique" and special is that they get booms while clerics generally get fixes for booms. Wizards do uncapped d4's... in damage.. whereas clerics heal d6, uncapped etc.
Sure there might be a couple divine spells that deal damage (flamestrike etc) but in those cases you could tweak them a little so that they are a bit either higher level or more limited purpose. Wizards bring the boom, whenever, wherever, while clerics could, in limited circumstances unleash the power of their gods.
So the above is from the point of view that you remain consistent across the board.. that everything the wizard does is measured in d4s etc. However, I see the idea with giving the different classes different strengths.
The following is me just thinking out loud...
Wizards deal d10 damage with any spell that deals damage
Fighters deal d10 with any weapon
Clerics cure d10 damage with healing (and some spells), otherwise
Rogues do uncapped d10 damage when sneaking something, otherwise d6
You'd need to make categories..
Magic - Wizards are best
Weapons - Fighters are best
Healing - Clerics are best
The more I look at this the less I see a place for rogues. Rogues should just be fighters with a specialty.
|
|
The other thing, weapon damage. How does that work with multiclassing? (Also, how much "old school" are you wanting here as far as generic multiclassing goes?). Should a Battle Priest build (75% War Cleric, 25%ish Fighter) use cleric or fighter Weapon damage?
The multiclassing thing occurred to me too. That would be a challenge...
<scratching head>
|
|
One thing I can suggest is to take a similar track as 2E, (1E?) with multiclassing, and basically you would combine all levels and divide by 1/2 (or howevermany classes they have).
So, a Cleric 4/Fighter 1 would be treated as a Cleric 4.5/Fighter 3, for "class features" like weapon/spell damage stuff. Something like that.
Well ... multi-class wise, I'd rather revert to AD&D outright (ie: dual or multi-class, but not both).
Dual classing would be easy enough to handle (ie: no previous class stuff accessible until you exceed the old level in the new class). Once you've met the dual req's, I'd say stick to "whatever is most advantageous" in application. Ie: if a fighter was 1st and had a good Fort save progression (assuming the simpler saves vs. old school saves in use), then after he's dualed up as a rogue of equivalent level, he could do weapon damage as a fighter, keep the good fort save (of whatever it's value), but then only add on rogue "stuff" as he moves forward.
Multi-classing outright ... tougher. Honestly, though, I still prefer the old way of just splitting xp overall. Classes move forward, BUT at a slower progression (due to splitting focus) than the single-classed guys. I always thought of that as a balance factor, IMO, vs. the straight class guys. By the time you're leveled up (even with the newer, single progression of xp), you'd have enough exp to have hit level 2 in 2 classes, which would mean that a straight classer would be probably like level 3-4 by then (since they're not splitting xp).
Just my thoughts, though ... I think the current {class X and then class Y just added is a frakkin' mess progression-wise}.
I think one of the things that makes wizards "unique" and special is that they get booms while clerics generally get fixes for booms. Wizards do uncapped d4's... in damage.. whereas clerics heal d6, uncapped etc.
Sure there might be a couple divine spells that deal damage (flamestrike etc) but in those cases you could tweak them a little so that they are a bit either higher level or more limited purpose. Wizards bring the boom, whenever, wherever, while clerics could, in limited circumstances unleash the power of their gods.
So the above is from the point of view that you remain consistent across the board.. that everything the wizard does is measured in d4s etc. However, I see the idea with giving the different classes different strengths.
The following is me just thinking out loud...
Wizards deal d10 damage with any spell that deals damage
Fighters deal d10 with any weapon
Clerics cure d10 damage with healing (and some spells), otherwise
Rogues do uncapped d10 damage when sneaking something, otherwise d6You'd need to make categories..
Magic - Wizards are best
Weapons - Fighters are best
Healing - Clerics are bestThe more I look at this the less I see a place for rogues. Rogues should just be fighters with a specialty.
Well, being resident skill-monkeys, rogues would/should always have a place, no?
BUT - how could they possibly get uncapped d10 damage???
I think it's interesting should all get d10's on *something* though - to emphasize expertise, really.
On the priest/cleric thing I'd say let them get that d10 stuff on anti-undead junk as well as the healing though (for flavor).
Bumping Rogues from d6 on sneak attacks to d10 wouldn't be THAT bad, IMO.
The rest is gravy, though (especially if the iterative attacks are dropped for the non-fighter types).
Any more work on this, Persis?
You guys might want to check this out. Pretty cool minimalist d20 system:
They might have more on their main site too.