| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man do i need to check out this Amber stuff.
Perfect example illusionist: Uncle Coleman from Peter Straub's Shadowland.
That sounds like something I'll have to read at some point. Reminds me that I should go re-read the Highroad Trilogy; from what little my memory serves me, it has some good battle sorcerer or possibly incarnate examples.
And while I know you've said you're not a fan of anime, I'd say that the entire cast of alchemists in Fullmetal Alchemist are great transmuters. They change objects into other things made of similar materials (a la European alchemy), but do so through the use of rune circles written around/on the object. Edward Elric (older brother of Alphonse Elric, the two of which are the main characters in the series) is able to perform transmutation by only clapping his hands and touching the object to be transmuted.
Has anyone read the Dune prequels, and if so, how do they rank up?
They weren't bad, but Anderson was kind of stuck working off of a very small number of notes (apparently Frank Herbert was notorious for keeping most everything in his head) in a style not his own. Ends up not being as good as the original six, but I thought they were still worth a read. The seventh and eighth books are...a different matter, though. They had issues that left a bad taste in my mouth. Worth it to finish the story, but it wasn't much more than that.
1. Yes. One of the big complaints about fighters was over-reliance on specific weapons, and I wanted to ameliorate that as much as possible as part of their built-in skill set.
2. Fighters' stacking attack bonuses were starting to get out of hand. (You can still get more bang for your buck than the average person by taking Weapon Focus, however.)
I agree with weapon aptitude, but I thought that weapon training is the only thing that boosts fighter's attack that's not open to other classes? If you think it's too much maybe make it the same bonus as W.Focus/Specialization (specialization bonus, methinks).
I agree with weapon aptitude, but I thought that weapon training is the only thing that boosts fighter's attack that's not open to other classes? If you think it's too much maybe make it the same bonus as W.Focus/Specialization (specialization bonus, methinks).
Fighters also get Onslaught of Blows, which is, in essence, a +5 to most attacks. If you still need a boost, Weapon Focus applies to a whole group for fighters, so it's not a bad choice.
And, given the several mentions of Amber, did you play Erik Wujick's diceless Amber game?
I played it for a while in the 90s. Best character generation system ever, but after that, the game itself pretty much sucked, because it's 100% DM fiat (my experience with Amber Diceless is part of why I'm so anal about always rolling dice in the open, even as DM).
After we finished two extended Diceless adventures, we took our Amber characters, converted them as closely as possible to "mortal" versions of themselves in AD&D, and proceded to have one of the better campaigns I've been involved in, so the experiment wasn't a total loss (also, the "build-your-own-artifacts-and-creatures" stuck with me, and ended up becoming part of the numen system).
Perfect example illusionist: Uncle Coleman from Peter Straub's Shadowland.That sounds like something I'll have to read at some point.
Be careful with it -- Straub was being experimental. Since the characters in the book are put into positions where they're never really sure what's real or illusion, Straub does the same to the reader, by using tricks like an unreliable narrator, or a narrator removed from the action, or by getting all misty when you think he's going to tell you something concrete, etc. It can be REALLY frustrating if you're not expecting it and don't relate it to the story as he does it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I played [Amber] for a while in the 90s. Best character generation system ever, but after that, the game itself pretty much sucked, because it's 100% DM fiat (my experience with Amber Diceless is part of why I'm so anal about always rolling dice in the open, even as DM).
I thought that might have been your experience.
It just amused me that so many on the thread love the Amber setting, and reference it when describing their characters, when the official RPG of the setting is made of Let's Pretend Fantasy Teaparty.
I liked that players bid against each other for ranking in their stats, I liked that after the initial sessions, no-one could know what even their own stats were. I wondered if it were possible to run a similar game for mortal PCs, at a lower baseline.
The problem with all diceless games is that a good GM will dispense with the dice for all the right reasons; a bad GM will go diceless for all the wrong reasons.
A player has no way of knowing the GM's reasons, and could accuse good GMs of being bad GMs, when things don't go their way.
I had fun playing it, but I can't imagine running it except with players I implicitly trust, and who implicitly trust me.
Battle Touch, IIRC, imposes a -5 penalty on all attacks. Granted, that may not be a big deal when you're looking at touch attacks, but with Dodge improved and Canny Defense widely available, it might be.
The only -5 penalty Battle Touch gives is if it's used with Spellstrike. But that penalty is from making use of a Strike feat as part of a full attack action.
Sorry, you lost me there. Equations?Found it. It's this, whatever it originally was:
If the summoning creature doesn't have a ______ _____, use its Hit Dice instead.
Is that supposed to be "caster level?"
For an Eldritch Knight, do 'weapon-like spells and SLAs' count as a weapon group?
Suppose an Elder Kantelist has their Bard spellcasting subsumed into their Sorcerer spellcasting, and they later take levels in Cleric with the Arcanist Domain and subsume their Sorcerer spellcasting into their Cleric spellcasting. What happens to the theurgy from the Bard levels? Does it stop working, does the theurgy get forwarded through to the Cleric spellcasting, or does the Elder Kantelist lore get replaced with the Sacred Performer lore?
It kinda looks like it, but I have to ask to know for sure. Can a Fighter pick up Personal Weapon, Personal Armor, and Personal Shield? Effectively being known for using a set of gear similar to Kaldra from Magic the Gathering?
For class features that grant an enhancement bonus to a specific weapon, does it have to be with a manufactured weapon, or anything that can be wielded as a weapon including natural attacks and unarmed strikes?
I remember Evil Lincoln making a thread about Brutal Maneuvers. Were those ever added to Kirthfinder?
I'm not completely sure, but it looks like Eldritch Knight(Wizard) + Arcane Disciple(Arcanist Domain: Battle Sorcerer) + Martial Arcanist is overall better than High Sorcerer.
It's this, whatever it originally was:If the summoning creature doesn't have a ______ _____, use its Hit Dice instead.Is that supposed to be "caster level?"
Yes, it originally said "caster level." I have no idea why Word would decide that's an equation. I blame Bill Gates.
For an Eldritch Knight, do 'weapon-like spells and SLAs' count as a weapon group?
That's a good question. As a rule of thumb, I'd consider "ranged touch spells" (orbs and rays) a specific weapon type, and "touch spells" another, and "spells requiring an attack roll" to be a weapon group.
Suppose an Elder Kantelist has their Bard spellcasting subsumed into their Sorcerer spellcasting, and they later take levels in Cleric with the Arcanist Domain and subsume their Sorcerer spellcasting into their Cleric spellcasting. What happens to the theurgy from the Bard levels? Does it stop working, does the theurgy get forwarded through to the Cleric spellcasting, or does the Elder Kantelist lore get replaced with the Sacred Performer lore?
Your theurgy towards total spell capacity from bard would get carried forward. However, your lore wouldn't suddenly switch -- you'd retain the other benefits from Elder Kantelist (inspiration synergy from arcane levels, not cleric ones, etc.), and you would NOT gain any of the other benefits from Sacred Performer.
Can a Fighter pick up Personal Weapon, Personal Armor, and Personal Shield? Effectively being known for using a set of gear similar to Kaldra from Magic the Gathering?
In general, you can't select a talent more than once, but in this specific instance I'd probably allow it anyway -- sounds like a cool character concept. I don't know anything about M:tG, though!
For class features that grant an enhancement bonus to a specific weapon, does it have to be with a manufactured weapon, or anything that can be wielded as a weapon including natural attacks and unarmed strikes?
You could make it "your claws" or "your fists" or "your bite," but not "all natural attacks" or whatever.
I remember Evil Lincoln making a thread about Brutal Maneuvers. Were those ever added to Kirthfinder?
Link?
I'm not completely sure, but it looks like Eldritch Knight (Wizard) + Arcane Disciple (Arcanist Domain: Battle Sorcerer) + Martial Arcanist is overall better than High Sorcerer.
I have no idea what you're constructing here. Can you give a specific example, like "Say I take X levels in fighter, and Y levels in wizard (arcane disciple, Arcanist domain), and Z levels in battle sorcerer(?)..."
Brutal Maneuvers
So, like this sort of stuff, or am I missing something?
Benefit: As a standard attack, make a single melee attack. If the attack hits, you can also initiate any combat maneuver against that opponent as a free action. You can apply the effects of this feat to a full attack, but all attack rolls (but not the associated combat maneuver checks) made that round suffer a -5 penalty, unless you are using the Check maneuver, in which case there is no penalty to your attack rolls.
Bull Rush Strike (Strike): If your base attack bonus is +6 or higher, you can make a single melee attack as a standard action; if it hits, you also gain a free bull rush attempt against that opponent. At the end of this movement, the target also falls prone if a second combat (forcing) maneuver check on your part beats his CMD. You can use this maneuver as part of a full attack, but doing so causes you to take a -5 penalty to attack rolls and CMB that round.
Grappling Strike: If your base attack bonus is +6 or higher, you gain the effects of the Maneuvering Strike feat (q.v.), but this applies only to grappling maneuvers made in conjunction with unarmed attacks.
Maneuver Training: If your base attack bonus is +6 or higher, you gain the effects of the Maneuvering Strike feat (trip or unbalance only), even if you do not possess that feat.
Blinding/Disarming/Sundering Strike (Strike): As a standard action, you can make a single melee attack. If it hits, you gain a bind, disarm, or sunder attempt (your choice) against that opponent as a free action. You can use this attack in conjunction with the Vital Strike feat (q.v.).
That's a good question. As a rule of thumb, I'd consider "ranged touch spells" (orbs and rays) a specific weapon type, and "touch spells" another, and "spells requiring an attack roll" to be a weapon group.
Wait, what? Crap. I thought "touch spells" meant any spell that's rolled against Touch AC. With the different subsets being "ranged touch spells" and "melee touch spells" for what range it worked for, and "weapon-like spells" for whether or not it dealt damage of some kind as described in Complete Arcane. Now it sounds like I'd need Innate Metamagic (Reach Spell) for Battle Touch to work with Eldritch Blast.
So, like this sort of stuff, or am I missing something?
Yes, all of that helps. Thank you.
I have no idea what you're constructing here. Can you give a specific example, like "Say I take X levels in fighter, and Y levels in wizard (arcane disciple, Arcanist domain), and Z levels in battle sorcerer(?)..."
1. Battle Sorcerer 1: Choose a Wudan so you have Martial Arcanist. Battle Sorcerer now provides Full Synergy towards Fighter Talents.
2. Arcane Disciple Specialist 1: Choose the Arcanist Domain and pick the Weak Theurgy option between Specialist Wizard and Battle Sorcerer. Battle Sorcerer now provides Weak Theurgy to Specialist Wizard spellcasting.3. Fighter 1: Choose the Eldritch Knight talent and have it apply its Weak Theurgy to your Specialist Wizard spellcasting.
4+. Battle Sorcerer 2+; Sorting out all the theurgy, Battle Sorcerer applies Weak Theurgy to Specialist Wizard spellcasting through Arcanist Domain, and Weak Theurgy again by using Martial Arcanist to apply Full Theurgy to Eldritch Knight.
Compared to High Sorcerer, you'd be behind in Wizard Spell Capacity by 1, and behind in Battle Sorcerer Spell Capacity by 2. But in return, you get better weapon proficiencies, better Hit Die, better saves, armor proficiencies, Combat Expertise, one step of Bravery, and everything a Battle Sorcerer gets up to level 18.
Can you pick up a Wudan through the feat Eldritch Heritage?
What was the design intention behind taking out the Personal Weapon's synergy with Bonded Weapon?
Just noticed Imp. Great fortitude says its +2 applies when determining its effects but the improved versions of iron will and lighting reflexes say that their bonus isn't included? As intended or is one set wrong.
Battle Sorcerer applies Weak Theurgy to Specialist Wizard spellcasting through Arcanist Domain, and Weak Theurgy again by using Martial Arcanist to apply Full Theurgy to Eldritch Knight
Chapter 1, Stacking Synergy: "Class synergy features from the same two classes do not create positive feedback loops." You can't use a battle sorcerer class feature to jack up battle sorcerer theurgy. A battle sorcerer 18/wizard (arcane disciple) 1/fighter 1 would have spell capacity 19th as a battle sorcerer, and none of the versatility of the High Sorcerer, since you're only able to prepare 1st level spells and have to cast the rest spontaneously, like a battle sorcerer.
Can you pick up a Wudan through the feat Eldritch Heritage?
As written, no. The referee and players might agree to allow this on a case-by-case basis, but it's not in the RAW.
What was the design intention behind taking out the Personal Weapon's synergy with Bonded Weapon?
To avoid free weapons with bonuses over +10, which is broken no matter how you look at it.
Just noticed Imp. Great fortitude says its +2 applies when determining its effects but the improved versions of iron will and lighting reflexes say that their bonus isn't included? As intended or is one set wrong.
They're all technically correct because the total bonuses to determine break points for new abilities are the same either way (+2 without the extra +2, vs. +4 with it, etc.). I agree that the wording should be standardized, however, and since IGF is the odd one out, I'd change that text.
Chapter 1, Stacking Synergy: "Class synergy features from the same two classes do not create positive feedback loops." You can't use a battle sorcerer class feature to jack up battle sorcerer theurgy. A battle sorcerer 18/wizard (arcane disciple) 1/fighter 1 would have spell capacity 19th as a battle sorcerer, and none of the versatility of the High Sorcerer, since you're only able to prepare 1st level spells and have to cast the rest spontaneously, like a battle sorcerer.
Right... I'm suddenly confused on what a positive feedback loop is. But if I'm reading that right, then different theurgies counting levels from one class can't be carried over and stacked onto another class, even if it won't bump up abilities past the Character Level limit. Correct?
Does Battle Touch only work with melee touch attacks, or can it work with ranged touch attacks as well?
Right... I'm suddenly confused on what a positive feedback loop is. But if I'm reading that right, then different theurgies counting levels from one class can't be carried over and stacked onto another class, even if it won't bump up abilities past the Character Level limit. Correct?
Yes, more or less. You can't use synergy from rogue to bump up your effective fighter level for purposes of giving you more rogue stuff, for example. Synergy never "reflects" from class to class, back and forth.
Does Battle Touch only work with melee touch attacks, or can it work with ranged touch attacks as well?
As written, it applies to "touch" attacks, not "ranged touch attacks," so not by RAW. Again, with referee and player agreement you might come up with case-by-case exceptions.
I'd also love a copy. Think I have an ages-old version somewhere from when you posted it directly in the thread, but would love a new one.
superlina95 (at) gmail (dot) com
I have an older version as well, I'd love to see the updates that have come along. Keep it up, Kirth!
wer_dragan (at) yahoo (dot)com
Is the April 2013 edition the latest one? If not, I'd like the new version around Halloween (or whenever it is you're sending it out). I'd also like both the Word document and the PDF if possible, please.
I noticed that the Gauntlet makes mention of the Exotic Unarmed Strike scaling that was in a previous edition. What has or should replace it?
I noticed that the Gauntlet makes mention of the Exotic Unarmed Strike scaling that was in a previous edition. What has or should replace it?
Like other errata, it's listed in the profile for this avatar.
Your effective rogue level for these talents is equal to your rogue level plus half your bard level (Full synergy)
Should this say Weak synergy instead?
You also have access to all of the Nomad psionic discipline powers from the d20 System Reference Document, as if they were spells of the appropriate level
Is this referring to the powers that only Nomads gain? Or is it referring to all the powers Nomads gain (i.e. including the powers all Psions get access to, no matter what their discipline is)?
I noticed that the Gauntlet makes mention of the Exotic Unarmed Strike scaling that was in a previous edition. What has or should replace it?Exotic: Light melee, 1d4/19-20, feats/class features applying to unarmed attacks also apply to your gauntlets (q.v.). Like other errata, it's listed in the profile for this avatar.
My apologies, I should have thought to look up an errata.
My apologies, I should have thought to look up an errata.
My apologies as well -- the number of errata are positively embarrassing.
Your effective rogue level for these talents is equal to your rogue level plus half your bard level (Full synergy)Should this say Weak synergy instead?
Yes, it should. Odd that I would have typed "full" unless something was in the back of my head; let me think on that!
You also have access to all of the Nomad psionic discipline powers from the d20 System Reference Document, as if they were spells of the appropriate levelIs this referring to the powers that only Nomads gain? Or is it referring to all the powers Nomads gain (i.e. including the powers all Psions get access to, no matter what their discipline is)?
"Discipline Powers" is the term used in the 3.5 Expanded Psionics Handbook (and SRD) to refer to the specific lists available only to each discipline; the general Psion powers are termed "Psion/Wilder Powers" instead.
OK, here's something that's been bothering me since Day 1, but I didn't want to touch it, because I felt like it "wouldn't be d20 anymore." But, seriously, this is something that is outright broken in D&D/PF, and by extension Kirthfinder as written, and it's something that could be fixed.
Listening to Jess Door and others, and looking at the math, the random number generator range (1-20) simply isn't big enough for the range of potential bonuses (up to +40 or more). This leads to a "binary"-ness in the current system, where, at mid- to high levels, if you set a moderate DC, an optimized character auto-succeeds, and a non-optimized one can't succeed, and the die roll is mostly just for form. Auto-succeed/auto-fail rules on a 1 or 20 help ameliorate that, but those don't apply to a lot of rolls, and don't help when people are making opposed checks.
One potential solution would be to limit the range of bonuses, to maybe a max of +10. This isn't really workable when you have a fighter with a 20-level range and a +1 attack bonus per level, plus Str, magic, class features, etc. So reducing bonuses, while overtly tempting, would realistically involve scrapping everything and redoing the entire game.
The other option is to expand the random number generator. The next workable step up from d20 is percentile dice, and that actually is a good thing to use for this. One could construct a table where you look up your total bonus, toss percentile dice, and read off the max DC that would let you reach. Most of the chances to meet DCs would be the same (so most of the table would be in 5% increments), but on the upper and lower ends, we could sneak in finer gradations. In this way, a person with a total bonus of +5 could potentially hit DC 30 (a feat impossible using the straight d20), but it might require a roll of "00" on the percentile dice. The same person could potentially miss a DC of 5, but the chance of that might be <5%.
For opposed rolls, one participant would roll to set the DC, and the other would roll to see if he/she can meet it.
The beauty is that there's no more rolling than at present, and you keep the exact same system of DCs and stacking bonuses, with no changes needed. The unfortunate part is that, instead of simply adding a bonus to the die roll, you're having to look on a table every time you throw a d20.
One very legitimate concern is that, if you take this step, you might as well scrap the d20 chassis entirely and start over from the ground up -- which means experienced d20 gamers who want to use their 3.5/PF stuff couldn't, and I'm not willing to do that. Whatever the final Kirthfinder rules look like, ultimately I want people to be able to buy Paizo books and use them.
Thoughts?
I'm gonna say this. Kirthfinder is already a different system than PF. I would rather keep d20 (I've almost never played anything else), but would like to see into what it evolves. If I'm not happy, I can still use current iteration of rules.
While the static bonuses do start to make the d20 roll rather irrelevant around middle levels, I think that the variety of challenges and different rolls allow for a specialized party to rely on eachother more than ever.
A fighter can easily hit most, if not all, monsters at that level, doing significant damage to them with little retaliation, while the rogue has a much harder time hitting and avoiding getting hit.
The reverse is true for traps. The fighter will get scythed, stabbed, and smashed repeatedly while the rogue discoveres and disables the traps with ease.
In the context of single encounters or entire adventures, there are enough different types of rolls that need to be made that every character should have events that challenge them, that overwhelm them, and that are trivial to them.
Most systems I've played in have difficulty challenging amateurs in the same party as specialized professionals at the specialist's focus. Given that the audience for Kirthfinder are people who want to use a more complex, detailed system (vs. regular PF), some of the onus of building appropriate challenges falls to the referee.
In my campaign, I have characters with vastly different offesive, defensive, skill, and magical capabilities. The defensive warrior has AC effectively 40+, while other character's AC remains in high teens and low 20's. The arcanist is continuously greater invisible and flying, while the other warriors are a mounted, charging single-target killer, and a two-weapon mobile BlendTec. Given the diversity present, any single challenge or roll type cannot challenge all characters equally.
Without scrapping the d20 foundation entirely, and switching to a percentile based system, (as an aside, my preferred percentile system was devised by the DragonQuest system in the 80's, with higher skill increasing the range where you were more likely to critically succeed, in addition to increasing the likelyhood of overall success), or switching d20 rolls to 3d6, or making some other fundamental modification to challenge resolution, that the d20 system offers familiarity and ease of outside source integratability that would be lost with such a change.
Acknowledging that the d20 system does have regions where it mathematically begins to fail, I still would use it as a skeleton, as a basic framework for building upon, because the experience with that system as a player and as a GM allows me to devote the limited time I have to gaming in playing a system I am adept at.
The meta-aspect of the rules is worth considering when contemplating such a modification: 1)how broken is the current system when used at various play levels? 2)how complicated is the solution, and is it easy to implement? 3)is the solution effective, in terms of how much work it saves the referee?
If I have a tenuously-tethered bridge, and I want to set the Acrobatics DC to cross, with failure of 5 or more resulting in a fall, I can make some basic assumptions based on the party makup, to help me set the level of challenge I want. I look at the average members of the party (who are un-encumbered, and without significant dexterity or acrobatics skill) and assign a difficulty that results in a better-than-half success rate, say DC 15. I know immediately that the rogue and arcanist (who flies) will find the bridge a trivial challenge. The clerics and barbarian will cross, with some trouble. The fighters will find the bridge terrifying.
Using a table-lookup roll system as I envision based on your description, the average members of the party would see no major difference in their chances for success, the rogue would have a insignificant chance to fail, and the fighters would have an insignificant improvement to their chances to succeed.
If the finer gradiations only occur at the extreme ends of the charts, how comprehensive are those changes, and what real effects do they introduce in play? If the modified areas are the top and bottom 10%, maybe not much. If the modified areas are the top and bottom 25% or 30%, then the frequency of those hightened successes or failures would actually impact the game at the table.
I'd be interested in helping develop such a chart, but the real impact would need to be considerable in order to justify its implementation.
|
Jess Door's idea for having multiple d20 rolls rather than additional modifiers is, I believe, the route they are taking in D&D Next (D&D 5th Edition). At least that's what I got out of the last time I looked at the beta test materials. I really liked the idea, actually.
In the playtest materials, they had the concept of advantage/disadvantage. If you had advantage in a situation you would roll 2d20 and take the better roll. If you had disavantage, you'd roll 2d20 and take the worse roll.
Obviously, the game overall relies far less on stacking numbers than it does giving out advantage/disadvantage.
I've read a game system that used d% - Anima I believe it was called. I had a lot of trouble making sense of the mechanics and never wound up playing it because it seemed like it would be a real pain in the backside, just because of the constant table look-up.
I like Jess' solution as well. I'd have to figure out what bonus translates to an extra die, but that could work with minimal disruption. That said, heliopolix might be correct; I did try to introduce a lot of "rock-paper-scissors" already (embracing the crazy modifiers, as it were), so maybe the extra dice thing would be working at cross purposes.
I'm most definitely open to additional discussion.
Purely out of curiosity, how much did it cost you to get a hard copy of your complete houserules, Kirth?
Honestly, the more I've been getting into D&D5, the more I've realized I like the idea of adding more dice (a la advantage and disadvantage, where you roll multiple dice and take the highest or lowest one, respectively) rather than increasing static bonuses like Jess suggests in the post Caedwyr linked. It would keep the needed rewriting to a minimum and keep things relatively simple (not having to worry about what ranges change to finer gradations and all that, just knowing that you get more dice). Plus, it's always more fun rolling more dice rather than just adding more bonuses.
For things like skills, you could say that after a certain rank, it starts adding more dice. Say, for every 5 ranks above the 5th rank (so, at 10, 15, and 20), you get to roll another d20 and take the result of your choice. Classes cap out at maybe +5 BAB and get another die every 5 after.
This would probably require some rewriting, but it feels like a good way to minimize that while also limiting top-end bonuses very significantly.
*Edit* Oh, hey, got ninjaed apparently. Still think this could work nicely, though.
As for it working against what you've already written, I don't see why you can't have characters who can specialize in ways not determined solely by dice, like how the rogue gets skill tricks; these are ways to make skills important that are above and beyond what anyone else can ever do, and is still a form of specialization. You can also have unique things that come from specializing into a skill. Having a certain number of skill points in Athletics (something high) could let you climb smooth walls or swim in extremely choppy seas, high BAB could still give you more attacks, etc.
So specializing would still give you noticeable bonuses that aren't just adding more numbers on top.
In addition to the option of adding dice, there is also the option of "minimum results"; that with increased skill, you gain a minimum result on your d20 roll.
Instead of Skill Focus adding +3 and then +6 to a skill, it could do that whenever you made the skill check, any d20 result of less than 6 was treated as rolling 6.
This results in a scenario similar to rolling several d20, but not the exact same thing - it's quicker and provides more safety for the user, but doesn't increase the chance to do spectacular things and is hard to stack across different abilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My issue with adding dice is that it becomes wankily difficult to hit static DCs. If a bonus of +25 becomes a +10 bonus with 3 dice rolled, for example, then you have only a 14% chance to hit DC 30, as opposed to the current 55% chance. This means a whole shift in the DC system, with a corresponding need to redo how AC is calculated.
Something I've seen some d100 games do is have mechanics revolving around "palindromic numbers" (11, 22, 33, 44, etc.). In some games, rolling a palindromic number can be a critical success if your roll also beats the DC, or a critical failure if your roll fails to beat the DC.
Unfortunately, a d20 only has one palindromic number, "11", a 5% chance to roll one. In a d20 system where you roll multiple dice, however, you could play with a similar idea.
When rolling multiple dice:
- Take the best result out of all dice rolled, and for each identical number you roll on a d20, you gain a +5 to +10 bonus to your check.
- Take the best result out of all dice rolled, and if the sum of all dice results equals a palindromic number, you gain a +5 to +10 bonus to your check.
- Take the best result out of all dice rolled. For each die result of "20" after the first, you gain a +10 bonus to your check. However, for each die result of 1, you take a -10 penalty to your check.
Another idea may be to not roll additional d20s as your skill or BAB increases (but still grant that mechanic with certain abilities), but instead roll extra d4s, d6s, d8s, d10s, or d12s, and add their result to your roll. Sort of like action points from 3.5/d20 Modern/D&D4E?, but baked into the system.
For skills, say you get a +1 bonus to your checks for every 2 ranks you possess in that skill (max +10 at 20 ranks; max result of 30 plus other bonuses at level 20). For every 4 ranks you possess, you add an extra 1d6 to your check result (5d4 at 20 ranks; avg +12, min +5, max +20). These combined, you get an average of +22 plus your other skill bonuses, at 20 ranks; min of +15 (min d20 result of [1+15=16], max d20 result of [20+15=35]), max of +30 (min d20 result of [1+30=31], max d20 result of [20+30=50]).
Another progression could be +1d8 at 4 ranks, +1d10 at 8 ranks, +2d6 at 12 ranks, +2d8 at 16 ranks, +2d10 at 20 ranks.
Or, +1d10 at 6 ranks, +2d10 at 11 ranks, +3d10 at 16 ranks.
For BAB, you could cap the bonus at +10 (could also alter the scaling of BAB per class to smooth this out), and grant an extra +1d4 at every +2 BAB, for a max of +5d4 at +10 BAB (At +10 BAB: min +15, avg +22, max +30; d20 result: min 16, avg [10+22=32], max 50). Or, +1d10 at +4 BAB, +2d10 at +8 BAB.
The dice you would choose would depend on the numbers you wanted to see, your DCs, and your degree of modifiers in the game.
I am currently working on a sci-fi homebrew game using the Pathfinder system (and heavily influenced by your system as well, Kirth), and I am running into the outrageous modifiers and roll results as well. I am trying to first reduce the number of modifiers (enhanced weapons do not offer bonus to attack, but instead reduce target's armor bonus to min of 0, feats offer less numerical bonuses), as well as their scaling and values (in order to make +1/+2 bonuses or -1/-2 penalties have more meaning). Having multiple d20 rolls (only a hand-full of abilities that allow this, but each class gets at least 1 or 2) really helps with this, as does the idea of adding extra dX dice to your roll result. I just haven't crunched all of the numbers yet.
The advantage of my situation, though, is that I am not aiming for full resource compatibility with Pathfinder, so I have the freedom to make drastic changes to the rules.
I am highly motivated to aid you in the development of your system, however! So anything I can do to help, please let me know!
Thanks, Sellsword! Your contribuition to the discussion has already been a great help, as it provided a much wider view of the possibilities. I hope to hear more of your opinions.
Thanks, Sellsword! Your contribuition to the discussion has already been a great help, as it provided a much wider view of the possibilities. I hope to hear more of your opinions.
Hey, my pleasure! Game Design is a passion of mine.
Expanding on the idea I had when rolling multiple d20 dice:
- Take the best result out of all dice rolled. For each die result of "20" after the first, you gain a +10 bonus to your check. For each result of "11" (avg d20 result is 10.5), you gain a +5 bonus to your check. However, for each result of "10" (avg d20 result is 10.5), you take a -5 penalty to your check. For each die result of 1, you take a -10 penalty to your check.
I just want to make sure I am understanding you correctly, Kirth; you are trying to add more "randomness" to the system without changing modifiers and DCs, correct? And you are concerned with optimized vs. non-optimized disparity?
If so, simply granting additional d20 rolls and taking the best out of all, does aid the non-optimized character to a slight degree, but it also perpetuates the optimized character's overshadowing success rate; The bad get a littler better, but the good stay good, and also get a little better.
When rolling multiple d20 dice:
- Take the best result out of all dice rolled. For each "success" (after modifiers) after the first, you gain an additional +5 bonus (additional natural 20s grant +10). However, for each "failure" (after modifiers), you take a -5 penalty to your chosen result (additional natural 1s result in a -10 penalty).
- Take the best result out of all dice rolled. For each result of 11 or above after the first, you gain an additional +2 bonus (additional natural 20s grant +5). However, for each result of 10 or below, you take a -2 penalty to your chosen result (additional natural 1s result in a -5 penalty).
These options create more randomness, but can also result in more failures. Perhaps rolling additional d20s is an option? Risk vs. Reward.
I just want to make sure I am understanding you correctly, Kirth; you are trying to add more "randomness" to the system without changing modifiers and DCs, correct? And you are concerned with optimized vs. non-optimized disparity?
Precisely. If faced with three people, one (Awesome Al) with a maxed-out skill and Skill Focus, one (Basic Ben) with only moderate investment (say, half max ranks), and one (Crippled Craig) with no investment, I do not want the outcome to always be A > B > C without needing to even roll a die. But that often happens in PF/KF at present, because the difference between their bonuses can potentially be larger than the entire range of the random number generator. When matching A vs. B or B. vs. C, something like 2:1 odds or even 4:1 is reasonable; 20:1 should be for a pretty big disparity, and "100:0" shouldn't come up at all. Even matching A vs. C, a 1% chance for C to win would be preferable to me than the current 0%.
At the same time, though, I don't want untrained drooling cretins to be able to design a space station through luck, and I don't want expert swordsmen to have a full 5% chance of cutting themselves shaving each morning.
For me, the advantage of Jess's proposed system seems to be that if done properly, it is a largely invisible change that can correct a lot of the probability issues with the current d20 system.
I'd argue that changing the entire way AC is calculated, and redoing all of the static DCs, is far from "largely invisible." There are ways around that, allowing (3d20, drop lowest) + 5 to somehow meet DC 30, for example, but they get progressively more complicated in play.
Either way, you need to start from understanding the mathematics and statistics of whatever system you are using. Going in blindly has never helped in any of the d20 or other systems and historically caused all sorts of weirdness.
Totally agree. I know the types of probablility distribution curves I want to generate for odds of meeting DCs (something more sigmoid, rather than linear distributions); I just need a method to generate results to match those curves. I was originally looking at a table because it would allow me to embed the math in the table, rather than having any need for calculations to be made during play, but as I said I'm open to other options.
Then perhaps a scaling hard cap is a solution. Putting ranks in a skill, taking a feat or trait or class feature that grants a bonus to a skill, or casting a spell that adds a bonus to a skill, all grant a stackable "skill bonus" (much like a dodge, enhancement, or feat bonus), but that has a hard cap of say HD + 4, or a flat +5, like an enhancement bonus. If a flat bonus, at certain tiers of play (say 6th, 11th, and 16th), the cap increases by +5, to a maximum of a +20 skill bonus at 16th level.
Then, when making a check, you roll 1d20, add your skill bonus (up to the hard cap), and then add your ability modifier (to reward ability score investment and allow monsters with high ability scores to still be challenging).
Add to that having "action dice" that scale with level (say 1d4, plus +1d4 for every 5 levels you possess, maximum of +5d4 at 20th level), that grant a stackable "skill bonus", but are also bound to the hard cap.
These together allow someone that hasn't invested, or only partially invested, in a skill a chance to be nearly comparable to someone that did, while the person that did invest doesn't have to roll "action dice" and can instead save them for a skill they haven't invested in.
The same can be done for attacks, using a hard-capped "attack bonus" and "action dice" that grant an "attack bonus". Now a rogue or wizard has the ability to hit just as effectively as a fighter with a weapon attack, but at the cost of resources. Perhaps full BAB characters spend their "attack action dice" to deal more damage or to off-set attack penalties.
There are ways around that, allowing (3d20, drop lowest) + 5 to somehow meet DC 30, for example, but they get progressively more complicated in play.
This might be your solution here; roll 2d20, add results together; if you roll 3d20, drop lowest, add results together; if you roll 4d20, drop lowest two, add results; etc. Each time you are increasing your chances of a higher roll, before modifiers, to meet your DC 30.