| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi all! I have spent the last year building a standalone rewrite of 3.5, called Rise. I love the idea of what Pathfinder did, but it wasn't quite what I wanted - so I thought I would follow in its footsteps and create an entirely new version of the game.
I would summarize my major design decisions as follows:
- Every class has been rebalanced, with null levels removed and a wide variety of unique abilities that only they can do. These abilities are not just higher numbers; mindlessly increasing numbers was intentionally avoided.
- Combat is more fluid and mobile, thanks to standard action full attacks and a revised attack of opportunity system. Combat maneuvers are easier to perform, allowing even characters that don't specialize to use them when it feels appropriate.
- Spellcasters have a much more limited ability to dominate the game, thanks to a combination of spell mechanic revisions to make them less absurd in combat and a conversion to a fully spontaneous system to make them less absurd out of combat. Spellcasters can no longer change spells daily, so they must choose areas to specialize in instead of being good at everything.
- Many mechanics and spells were altered slightly to increase simplicity, making the system easier to learn and faster to play.
There are much smaller number of "traps" - opportunities to make poor decisions which inadvertently hurt a character's effectiveness. You still have the freedom to build any character you want, but it is much more difficult to accidentally build a useless character.
If this sounds interesting, I encourage you to check out the PDF. Due to the size of the rewrite (currently at over 300 pages), it is difficult to represent it in any other form. However, I have summarized the key differences between Rise and 3.5 (spoilered due to length):
- Every ability is tied to a saving throw, either as full modifier or as half a modifier.
- Fort is Con + 1/2 Str. Reflex is Dex + 1/2 Wis. Will is Cha + 1/2 Int.
- No stat is a free dump stat anymore. The degree to which Charisma was an easy dump stat in 3.5 was not healthy, and it won't happen again. (The changes to skill points also help with this - see below.)
- An ability score has two different numbers that are used in play: ability modifier and ability value. Ability modifier is calculated as (ability score - 10) and is used with all d20-based rolls and attributes: attack bonus, armor class, saving throws and save DCs, and so forth. Ability value is calculated as (ability score - 10) / 2 and is used with all non-d20 based rolls and attributes: damage rolls, HP, ability uses/day, and so forth.
- This is a big change, and no doubt a controversial one. I know. But I think it is better.
- Ability checks have always been difficult to use because ability modifiers were so incredibly low in comparison to a d20. The difference between a 10 and an 20 - the difference between an average commoner and Arnold Schwarzenegger - only equates to a +5 difference. If they both try to break down a DC 15 door, the commoner succeeds 30% of the time, whereas Ahnold only succeeds 55% of the time. That's a tiny difference! And Ahnold should be breaking that door down nearly every time - certainly within two rounds. With the new system, the difference is a whopping +10. No more can the commoner pose a significant threat to the Terminator in door-busting speed. Plus, the 20 strength character can, with enough time and effort, even take down DC 30 doors - a much more significant accomplishment
- From another perspective: a DC 10 door poses just as much challenge to a 10 strength character as a DC 20 door poses to a Strength 20 character. Doesn't that make a lot of sense?
- The biggest objection is no doubt from a balance perspective. A fighter with a 16 Strength starts with a +7 attack bonus (but only +3 damage) at character creation. That sounds like a lot, and it is - though AC is generally increased as well. I guess what I would say here is just "trust me". I think it works. The numbers for the whole system were crunched assuming these numbers, and they seem to work. Honestly, I would prefer that starting attack bonus was just a tad lower - but I think the ability to have a big difference between a strong character and a weak character is worth keeping.
- Ability modifier caps at 10. Ability values do not cap.
- This is a notable downside to the new ability modifier/value system: if you allow truly monstrous ability modifiers, the system breaks at high levels. The cap solves this problem.
- This is justifiable from a fluff standpoint. My basic argument is that there is a limit to how much ability a mortal frame can actually support. Even magic can't completely overcome the limitations of the body.
- The cap at 10 was chosen for two reasons: it makes the numbers work well, and it mirrors the fact that the minimum ability modifier is -10 (for a 0 ability score).
- If I ever write epic rules, the cap could be removed once you hit epic. This would create a very clear breakpoint between pre- and post- epic play which has a lot of intuitive implications that I like.
- Capping modifiers at 10 also encourages characters to not simply devote all of their energy into a single ability score. I think this encourages more interesting/flexible characters overall.
- Every race gets a racial bonus feat. Each race has a specific list of bonus feats that it can choose. Culturally specific racial features, such as giant-fighting and weapon proficiencies, have been changed into racial feats to separate them from inherent physical aspects of the race.
- Every class now has something unique that only it can do. They are better at fulfilling their "fluff" role, and it is much more difficult for a character of one class to be rendered irrelevant by a character of a different class.
- Null levels are basically gone. I don't think there are any left. Every class gains interesting and flavorful abilities as they grow in power.
- The most problematic and overly complex abilities are gone.
- Animal companions and familiars are out of core. Yes, there is a place for them, and I plan on eventually adding them back as some sort of alternate class feature or other character option. But frankly, I can't remember the last time a player actually thought of the companion/familiar as a core part of their character. It's a lot of complexity for fairly little gain - except when it is abusable. I have no objection to letting a player who really wants a familiar to have one., and I'll make good rules when the time comes But it doesn't belong as a standard class feature.
- Wild shape no longer exists. It has been replaced with wild aspect.
- Animal companions and familiars are out of core. Yes, there is a place for them, and I plan on eventually adding them back as some sort of alternate class feature or other character option. But frankly, I can't remember the last time a player actually thought of the companion/familiar as a core part of their character. It's a lot of complexity for fairly little gain - except when it is abusable. I have no objection to letting a player who really wants a familiar to have one., and I'll make good rules when the time comes But it doesn't belong as a standard class feature.
- Multiclassing with non-caster classes is easier: for every two levels you have in a noncasting class, you increase your spells per day/spells known in a casting class by one. This is limited by the number of levels you have in the actual casting class. Alternately, you can use this to automatically combine any two casting classes like a mystic theurge.
- Multiclassing a caster has always been fairly stupid - unfortunately so. Fighter X / Wizard X should be a viable build - even the default option - instead of relying on convoluted prestige class chains.
- Multiclassing a caster has always been fairly stupid - unfortunately so. Fighter X / Wizard X should be a viable build - even the default option - instead of relying on convoluted prestige class chains.
- Spells are much less capable of rendering skills irrelevant. See below for more detail.
- Instead of being based on Intelligence modifier, a character gains skill points based on all of her ability scores. A high Strength gives you points to spend on Strength-based skills, a high Dexterity gives you points in Dexterity-based skills, and so on.
- Making skill points be based on Intelligence has strange effects. In 3.5, if a character wants to be good in any particular area, she must make sure she has a high enough Int to support that. However, classes with a high number of skill points are much less affected by that limitation. In this system, a character who wants to be good at social skills just puts points in Charisma, and a character who wants to be dextrous and agile just puts points in Dexterity. Much more intuitive.
- I also think the system just makes more sense. Does Bob the fighter really need to be very smart in order to be able to master the difficult feats of jumping, swimming, and climbing? I don't buy it.
- Characters gain more skill points as they level up, allowing them to learn new skillls over time instead of just getting better at the ones they have.
- When first creating a character, many players don't know exactly what they want to do with their skills. This removes the pressure to decide at the start everything the character is going to do.
- It just makes sense to me that characters would grow both in breadth and in depth as they gain experience.
- A number of skills have been merged or had their ability modifier change:
- Appraise is now a part of Gather Information, with bits found in Knowledge (local) as well.
- Decipher Script and Speak Language are now Linguistics.
- Search is now a part of Spot.
- Spellcraft is now a Wisdom-based skill, like all other perception skills. It automatically functions like a detect magic.
- Individual skill changes have been made as well:
- Concentration is no longer a skill. See below.
- Diplomacy is done more or less entirely as described by Rich Burlew. Some minor changes have been made to the numbers.
- Overwhelming success on Heal checks can now make out of combat healing extremely rapid. Useful!
- Knowledge (history), (local), and (nobility/royalty) have been merged into Knowledge (local).
- When using Tumble to avoid attacks of opportunity, your result is now treated as your AC if it is higher than your AC would be. A significant nerf.
- Weapon changes:[list=1]
- Light weapons only get 1/2 Strength value to damage, even in the main hand.
- Two-handed weapons (now called heavy weapons) deal d10 damage at most instead of 2d6.
- This just helps make them more balanced against one-handed weapons (now called medium weapons) and light weapons.
- This just helps make them more balanced against one-handed weapons (now called medium weapons) and light weapons.
- Weapons are divided into "weapon groups", as the Unearthed Arcana variant but with different groups: armor weapons, axes, heavy blades, light blades, bows, crossbows, flexible weapons, headed weapons, monk weapons, polearms, simple weapons, spears, thrown weapons, weaponlike spells, and unarmed weapons.
- Masterwork weapons no longer exist
- Attack bonus is already high at low levels, and this didn't seem to serve a purpose.
- Medium armor does not slow your speed, but penalizes your running speed multiplier.
- All light armor lets you apply your full Dexterity modifier. Medium and heavy armor halves your Dexterity modifier and Dexterity value.
- All medium and heavy AC bonuses except for full plate were increased by 1
- Masterwork armor no longer exists.
- Armor/shield spikes decrease AC by 1
- Summary:[list]
- Medium armor has a reason to be worn
- Armor in general is slightly more protective
- Medium and heavy armor penalize all uses of Dexterity (including Reflex saves), which strikes me as being more intuitive.
- Armor check penalties are equal to what is listed on the table, not always one lower than what the table says after about 2nd level. That was weird.
- Not all armor should be spiked. It is very strange in 3.5 that all armor is better when spiked, and definitely not intuitive/realistic.
- Ten foot pole now costs less than a ladder.
- Making a full attack is a standard action.
- This makes movement in combat easier, encouraging a more mobile and interactive game, and is more intuitive.
- This makes movement in combat easier, encouraging a more mobile and interactive game, and is more intuitive.
- Attacks of opportunity are provoked by moving away from a threatening creature, not out of a threatened square.
- It makes little sense to me that you should provoke for trying to get close to a creature. This makes movement in combat easier, encouraging a more mobile and interactive game, and is more intuitive.
- Flanking is replaced by overwhelm penalties: you suffer a penalty to AC equal to the number of enemies threatening you, as long as there are at least two foes threatening you.
- This is simpler than the existing flanking rules and more intuitive (no more can you be surrounded by 4 people, none of whom get flanking bonuses). In addition, it makes large groups of enemies a legitimate threat.
- 5' steps no longer exist.
- Spellcasters can longer trivially cast spells in combat without provoking attacks of opportunity merely by stepping back. This was unintuitive, metagame-y, and make casters extremely difficult to pin down. Now, defensively casting is the default option if a caster gets caught in melee.
- The "default encounter" is designed to last for 5 rounds on average, not the 2-3 rounds (if that) common in 3.5.
- This dramatically decreases the "rocket tag" problem endemic in remotely optimized 3.5 play. It encourages more tactical and dynamic play, allowing time for positioning and debuffs to reap rewards.
- If you are wondering how this is accomplished, the answer basically boils down to a lot of number crunching and tweaking of subtle things like spell damage progressions, wealth by level, magic item prices, and all sorts of fun things.
- Resting for 8 hours heals you for half your hit points, rather than merely 1 HP per level. This can be significantly accelerated by a good Heal check.
- Healing rapidly while out of combat is good because it keeps the action focused on the combat instead of on tedious resource management ("How many Cures will it take to cure you this time? I guess we'll have to roll them all..."). However, it is not so rapid that characters will enter every combat at full hit points unless they make an effort to do so (including with phenomenal Heal checks).
- When your HP goes to 0, it stops there - no excess damage is taken from that hit. There are no negative hit points. Instead, damage taken while at 0 is considered critical damage, and can put you unconscious or kill you. Critical damage also takes much longer to heal.
- Because being disabled only happened when you were at exactly 0 HP, it basically never happened except as a weird fluke after about 1st level. However, I think that having people stumble around while disabled and at 0 HP adds a lot of fun and interesting opportunities for roleplaying. It also makes it less likely that a fluke critical from a x3 weapon will just flat out kill you. Which, while perhaps realistic, is not all that fun (at least in my experience).
- Critical damage taking longer to heal is good from a fluff perspective (since it represents serious physical injury to the body, rather than the reltaively ephemeral concept of hit points) and good as an encouragement to players not to take critical damage if it is at all possible to avoid it.
- Combat maneuvers are based fairly closely on Pathfinder's combat maneuver system. There are subtle changes.
- Your defense against combat maneuvers is defined simply as Touch AC + BAB + Strength modifier (+special size modifier). This is essentially the same as Pathfinder, but much easier to remember.
- Size modifiers are +4/+8/etc., like in 3.5, instead of +1/+2/etc., like in Pathfinder. A giant should be significantly more difficult to bull rush than a human - and that isn't just due to the Strength bonus. Size matters a lot.
- Grappling is redefined (again). Hopefully this version is simpler.
- All spellcasting is spontaneous. Prepared casting no longer exists.
- Prepared spellcasting was complicated, required far too much player skill to be used to its fullest extent, and make it easy to trivialize encounters by simply waiting to prepare the perfect spell for the situation. Spontaneous spellcasting means that casters feel more unique, are easier to play, and are less likely to accidentally (or intentionally) "break" a story.
- Spells which have an inordinately long casting time, have generally noncombat effects, or which would never be worth taking in a spontaneous system are now "rituals". Rituals do not take up spells known or spell slots, but require material components to learn and cast.
- One major downside of a fully spontaneous system is that spells like continual flame or bless water would almost never be worth spending a spell known on. However, they are things which one might reasonably expect a spellcaster to be able to do. Rituals fill this gap.
- Rituals also mean that a caster's combat ability and ability to do "fun" spells is not impeded by the need to cast endure elements on the entire party to go adventuring in the Arctic Wastes, and doesn't need to waste one of his powerful and mighty spell slots doing the grunt work teleport that the entire party benefits from. Why make one character pay a significant cost for something that the entire party gains significantly from? Rituals make being a spellcaster more fun.
- All spells scale more consistently with level and remain useful for longer. Caster level caps are gone and save DC is based on caster level instead of spell level.
- Caster level caps have always had really screwy effects on spellcasting. For example, why should an empowered fireball at 10th level do 15d6, while a cone of cold does 10d6? This is wildly unintuitive. Higher level spells do somewhat more damage than lower level spells, but are primarily differentiated by the fact that they get additional effects, more range, wider area of effect, and so on. For example, cone of cold can also fatigue creatures struck.
- Additionally, making spell save DC no longer dependent on spell level is much easier to keep track of and has other minor positive effects.
- Many spells, particularly spells which deny actions, only have their full effect on "bloodied" creatures (at or below half HP) or on foes which fail their saves by 10 or more.
- This integrates spellcasting much more thoroughly with combat. A well-placed spell at the start of combat can no longer end a fight before it starts. Instead, it they can make the fight easier and end sooner. However, dealing damage is almost always a relevant concern.
- Example: Hold Person now slows healthy creatures and paralyzes bloodied creatures.
- Almost all "action denial" effects can only affect bloodied creatures.
- Spells which completely deny actions are not fun for players who are taken out of the fight, and can render challenging encounters trivial if the enemy is prevented from ever taking significant action.
- Spell ranges and durations no longer scale with caster level.
- This makes the process of casting a spell simpler, since your range doesn't change every time you level up. There are better ways to use caster level.
- Caster level in general is more variable, with feats and magic items to affect it.
- Originally, there was little "customization" you could do to represent being better in some areas than in other areas. The only things which did this were far away from the core rules, and often relatively esoteric or unusual. Now spellcasters can have as much individual customization as non-spellcasters.
- Spell damage formulas were completely redone. Area of effect spells now generally do 1/2 the damage of single target spells, and Empower and Maximize no longer exist.
- In 3.5, a mage could trivially one-shot himself without much effort thanks to spells like scorching ray, particularly when empowered. That isn't a healthy game dynamic. Additionally, area of effect spells were ludicrously powerful against large groups. That wasn't always a problem in 3.5, since the "default encounter" was against a single foe. However, in Rise, the default encounter is assumed to be against a number of foes equal to the number of PCs. AOE spells needed to be toned down, or they would vastly outshine normal spells. Fireball is still powerful - but it can't end an encounter by itself.
- Spells are generally much less capable of rendering skills irrelevant.
- Skills are a huge part of the game, and spells have often walked all over skills except when the skill numbers were ludicrously optimized. Due to a combination of individual spell changes and a spontaneous system instead of a prepared system, skills in general are more useful.
- Spell resistance is now tied to a specific saving throw. The caster effectively "rolls his DC" to beat a number equal to the creature's SR + its relevant saving throw modifier. (This means SR ranges from 1 to 20 instead of automatically increasing with level.)
- Spell resistance was just a blanket "screw you" to casters. This means that a caster fighting an enemy with spell resistance still has a chance to affect it - the caster just has to make sure they are using spells which target its weak points. This means that it limits the caster without completely shutting his offensive ability down.
- Concentration is no longer a skill. Instead, it is an automatic feature of spellcasters. Defensive casting is automatic; failure means you provoke attacks of opportunity normally, not fail the spell. DCs are based on double spell level instead of spell level.
- Concentration does not belong as a skill; not taking it as a spellcaster is sufficiently dumb that it shouldn't be an option unless you really, really know what you're doing. Having it as a skill is just a trap for new players who don't know enough to take it.
- The choice whether to defensively cast or not to defensively cast is a very mechanical and slightly metagame-y decision. I have never found it easy to explain to new players, and I'm not sure it makes sense. Automatic defensive casting, where failure means you provoke, is more forgiving and (I believe) more intuitive.
- Overwhelm penalties also apply to Concentration checks. If you are surrounded by eight armed warriors, you're going to have a bad time.
- Invincibility is extremely difficult or impossible to get through spells.
- Flight spells were increased in level and shortened in duration. No PC ability in the game gives flight for longer than about 5 rounds at a time, allowing noncasters to "wait out" the duration of the flight and still be alive to pummel the flying character.
- Several huge defensive spells, such as mirror image and greater invisbility, were toned down in effectiveness and made less game-breaking.
- Flight spells were increased in level and shortened in duration. No PC ability in the game gives flight for longer than about 5 rounds at a time, allowing noncasters to "wait out" the duration of the flight and still be alive to pummel the flying character.
- Nearly all spells were changed to some degree. A very brief summary:
- Complicated effects were simplified (mirror image) or removed (no magic jar).
- Spells which can shut down combats (web, solid fog) were nerfed, primarily by making them easier to escape.
- Caster self-buffs were diminished in power to prevent them from overshadowing fighters (divine power)
- Many spells changed level to make sure spells are balanced.
- Spell schools were rebalanced and refluffed slightly, increasing the power and versatility of neglected schools (Necromancy and Enchantment) and diminishing the necessity of other schools (Conjuration and Transmutation)
- The cleric and sor/wiz general list is smaller, but both classes can gain limited access to additional spells: each cleric domain gives two spells per level, and there is a "specialist list" of spells which is only accessible by sor/wiz class features on a limited basis.
- This makes different casters feel more unique and limits the complexity involved in choosing spells known.
- Wealth by level is significantly decreased (at least in the 15-20 range) and actually based on a formula that scales at the same rate as magic item prices.[list=1]
- High level characters in 3.5 have ludicrously high wealth by level. Keeping WBL tied directly to magic item price scaling makes it much more reasonable.
- Special abilities shouldn't be just a more efficient way of increasing the weapon's raw attributes. They should be for special abilities - stuff that makes the weapon interesting and flavorful.
I am still in the process of editing and finishing the system, so there will be occasional mistakes. However, it is 90% done, and I am very interested in seeing what people think!
Wow. Just skimmed it. I like a lot of the things that you have done. Especially with the druid aspects. And domains. And Favored Terrains...
I like how many of these actually let you do something, instead of just giving you a plus.
I also like how you organized the feats/slills/magic items into thematic tables.
love natural casting, will look into it more in depth when my adobe updates.
I've only skimmed through the first four chapters of the .pdf, but this is pretty good stuff so far!
I'm impressed! You seem to have combines some of the best features from 3.5, 4e, and Pathfinder.
Have you done much play testing yet?
Thank you! I am glad you all like it. I have run two year-long campaigns with the system, plus a few shorter games. As a result, the core elements are fairly thoroughly tested. However, because the system is still in active development, there are a fairly large number of things (including a few whole classes, such as the monk) that haven't seen direct playtesting. Words would not describe my joy if someone wanted to test this and see how it goes for their group. The biggest obstacle to someone other than me running the system at this point is that, due to the sheer number of changes, I will need to rewrite the Monster Manual more or less in its entirety. Given that there is still a fairly extensive list of things that I need to finish about this core book, building a good Monster Manual will be a challenge for some time to come.
Just read through your spoilers list, I may get to the PDF soon.
* I love the change you made to learning skills. Makes much more sense to me.
* I was only yesterday thinking about the futility of flanking - your overwhelm mechanic is beautiful - kinda like shields of different sizes only defending you against a certain number of foes from a previous edition.
Looks like you've thought about this a lot, and much of this can be cherry-picked for any homebrew, much like Kirth Gersen 's Kirthfinder.
Thanks for all your work and making it freely available!
I read through all of it, and I must say I'm impressed. Although I began making some changes to 3.5 that are very similar to yours (mainly the heal 1/2 HP when resting and TWF as a Standard action), you really brought your ideas to the "next level". I might consider trying some of these variations in my current Pathfinder campaign. Thanks for sharing!
Can a rogue sneak attack at range if the opponent is suffering overwhelm penalties?
I would be honored if you did, Araknophobia! And curious to hear how it goes.
Can a rogue sneak attack at range if the opponent is suffering overwhelm penalties?
Absolutely. Ranged rogues are now a viable option (without the need for shenanigans).
Just read the spoiler -- it looks very similar in many respects to what I did in "Kirthfinder." I look forward to perusing your PDF tonight.
Loving it~!
It's funny... I'm doing the same thing, but combining a lot of aspects of 4E that I like. The smoother combat. Things like Action Points (These are typically racial or class features and don't grant extra actions). I'm also having more spells that require hits, and there will be +5 Wands/staves/rods and things like that that will help them hit. Also they will add damage to spells, or bonus damage to spells so they aren't quite so random.
You can bet I'm looking over this and going to look at things I like and things I don't like. I don't like some of the changes you're making Attacks of Opportunity for example, and I like that there are two stats tied to the saves, though I'm not going to have them added together... I'm going to have them be a 'whichever is higher' sort of thing. The flanking rule I like... sorta. I want positioning to matter too. Would you instead have an outnumber rule (which is what I'm going to do) that allows +1 to hit for every ally in an adjacent square?
Oh and I really like the reduced effect from spells like Hold Person. In my system there is a bloodied system as well, but its different from the normal system. Everyone basically has extra HP equal to your Con modifier + Level. That is your True HP. When you take damage to your True HP you are bloodied until healed.
Anyways looks good. I'm looking forward to reading the PDF.
Just read the spoiler -- it looks very similar in many respects to what I did in "Kirthfinder." I look forward to perusing your PDF tonight.
Hi Kirth! I actually just discovered your Kirthfinder ruleset thanks to Oceanshieldwolf, and I am intrigued. I already like your dazzled condition better than mine, so it will be replaced in the next version of the PDF. As you noted, it seems we have had some very similar ideas at times (splitting the rogue's talents into skill and combat talents, for example). I will be going through your system to see if there are areas I particularly want to incorporate; it looks like you did an excellent job. There are definitely some differences in design philosophy, though - I hope you like what you see, and let me know if you have any criticisms.
It's funny... I'm doing the same thing, but combining a lot of aspects of 4E that I like. The smoother combat. Things like Action Points (These are typically racial or class features and don't grant extra actions). I'm also having more spells that require hits, and there will be +5 Wands/staves/rods and things like that that will help them hit. Also they will add damage to spells, or bonus damage to spells so they aren't quite so random.
Action points or hero points has been an idea I've been kicking around for a while. I haven't written up my own system, but I think a system like 4e's action points or like Kirthfinder's hero points could work. (In particular, I would not recommend action points for a normal 3.5/PF game, because actions are too valuable there. In Rise, combats are intended to last longer in game time, so it might work.) As far as +5 rods/robes/etc. goes, my intention is that there will be items that boost caster level. Since caster level = DC in my system, boosting caster level has a fairly universal effect across spells, so there is plenty of design space to explore there.
You can bet I'm looking over this and going to look at things I like and things I don't like. I don't like some of the changes you're making Attacks of Opportunity for example, and I like that there are two stats tied to the saves, though I'm not going to have them added together... I'm going to have them be a 'whichever is higher' sort of thing.
I think there is a very important design difference between an addition and a "whichever is higher". A sum encourages characters to be both strong and tough, or both agile and perceptive. A "whichever is higher" discourages it. There are also a couple mechanical issues. First, Con is too weak as an ability score if Strength can be used fully for Fort saves. Second, save DCs were balanced around the sum mechanic, so switching to a "whichever is higher" will potentially make save DCs higher than they should be. I'm not saying you can't do it - just be aware of the consequences. What I would recommend is that, instead of using a "whichever is higher" system, you allow a feat to switch which ability score is used as the "higher" stat. For example, it could be called "Intuitive Reflexes", and the effect would be "You add your Wisdom modifier + half your Dexterity modifier to your Reflex saves". Makes sense? I think that accomplishes your design goal without some of the side effects.
The flanking rule I like... sorta. I want positioning to matter too. Would you instead have an outnumber rule (which is what I'm going to do) that allows +1 to hit for every ally in an adjacent square?
Would you still have flanking? Because that means that if you have allies surrounding the enemy like this:
A - A- E -
A - A
None of the allies would get outnumber bonuses. There are also complicated mechanical implications. For example, consider this arrangement:
A A A
A E A
- - -
In my system, the enemy has a -4 AC, and we're done. In your system, the bonuses range from +1 to +4, depending on where exactly the ally is in the arrangement. This is substantially more complicated - feasible if every ally is a PC, but a nightmare if you're a DM trying to run a large group of enemies.
Plus, some of the implications feel oddly mechanical and metagame-y. For example, consider an enemy totally surrounded by allies. If you are on the "corner", you get only a +2 bonus, but if you are in the "middle", you get a +4 bonus. But my intuition says that if you really are totally surrounding someone, there aren't corners; you're just all in a circle beating him up. So by trying to be "more realistic" and taking into account positioning, I think it actually ends up being less realistic.
With that said, I think that a system which incorporated some amount of positioning could be beneficial. I just don't know what that would be.
Oh and I really like the reduced effect from spells like Hold Person. In my system there is a bloodied system as well, but its different from the normal system. Everyone basically has extra HP equal to your Con modifier + Level. That is your True HP. When you take damage to your True HP you are bloodied until healed.
Anyways looks good. I'm looking forward to reading the PDF.
Interesting. I'm glad you like it, thanks!
Kirth and Vad working together...this could be lead to something interesting.
~~~Action Points~~~
The way I have them worked out... Wood Elves can use the action point to re-roll a ranged attack. Grey Elves to reroll a spell with an attack function. High Elves to reroll an attack with a one handed melee weapon. Dwarves get to keep fighting for a number of rounds equal to thier con modifier but dazed. Half Orcs get to use thiers when they become bloodied to create an attack of opportunity against the bloodying opponent if adjacent.
~~~Stats/Saves~~~
Wait... Con is a weak stat? I was under the impression that it was one of the best stats because it's bonus is static, always effective and freely renewable. It allows you more, and when I was adding the Con score to equal the True HP of the player... I was quite afraid to allow this. Maybe I'm wrong, but... that is beside the point.
To the point... The issue of saying both added can be numerically added, and that's fine. I just prefer to have a whichever is highter, because if you have a class such as a Ranger who doesnt need Strength or Con specifically... using Wisdom and Dex primarily, they will have a much lower, and thier higher is higher. In a way it actually adds to a more chaotic system, which has it's high points, but when you're talking about your basic defenses, I think that there should be a greater balance to help the characters and the enemies. So in my system the things are more balanced out evne when there are no bonuses at all to get, and in your system the highs are higher, and the lows are lower.
~~~Flanking~~~
The way I'm having it... Flanking will give extra damage, and hit. Outnumber will have bonuses to hit. I want to have multiple creatures be more threatening to higher level creatures. Even the Spartans had to narrow thier enemies effectiveness in the battle of thermopylae. My system of outnumbering would have your first instance grant all attackers to the center to have a +5 to hit. +3 for each adjacent ally to the target, and +2 because they are all flanking. Then add +2 damage because they are all flanking. If you had 9 enemies surrounding 1 guy, they would all get a +10 to hit (+8 for outnumber, +2 for Flank since they're all flanking) which would give a bit of a what I feel to be a needed bonus for melee, as well as groups like City Guard. I've found that city guard tend to be greatly outclassed pretty much once most classes hit about level 5.
I would be honored if you did, Araknophobia! And curious to hear how it goes.
As soon as I get in touch with my group again and continue our campaign, I'll ask them if they're OK with incorporating some of your rules. If they are and the results are interesting, I'l let you know!
EDIT: Actually, I'm sure our Ape Shaman druid will LOVE your take on Wild Aspect (ape). She basically built her PC to be an acrobat/monk/druid, so giving her natural attacks and rend makes her character WAY cooler than it currently is.
TheJayde:
~~~Action Points~~~
Different from what I would do, but if it fits your campaign world, go for it.
~~~Stats/Saves~~~
Wait... Con is a weak stat?
Well, it has two benefits: it adds to Fort saves, and it increases hit points. If you let Strength replace Con for Fort saves, then its only benefit is that it increases hit points (and, in your system, real hit points). I'm not sure that's enough. (Also, it feels boring to me.)
So in my system the things are more balanced out even when there are no bonuses at all to get, and in your system the highs are higher, and the lows are lower.
That's exactly right - actually, that's one of the core things that Rise changed as a whole. My only quibble is that I wouldn't say that your system is more balanced. It is more even, with less differentiation between characters. You can still have a fun game that way, so if that is your aim, go for it! (I wouldn't recommend that change while still using the Rise ability modifier/value system; that will make save DCs too high.) I just have different goals.
~~~Flanking~~~
Sounds like your system is the same as mine, except that it includes flanking and overwhelm penalties are one lower and are given as attack bonuses to the surrounding allies instead of AC penalties to the enemy. So it would work - I just think my version is simpler and easier to work with. I don't like futzing around on a battle map trying to figure out whether figures are directly opposite each other, but many groups have more patience for that than I.
As soon as I get in touch with my group again and continue our campaign, I'll ask them if they're OK with incorporating some of your rules. If they are and the results are interesting, I'l let you know!
EDIT: Actually, I'm sure our Ape Shaman druid will LOVE your take on Wild Aspect (ape). She basically built her PC to be an acrobat/monk/druid, so giving her natural attacks and rend makes her character WAY cooler than it currently is.
Awesome. I hope it works out well. (Note that the natural weapons were intended to work with my revisions which make natural weapons function almost exactly like regular weapons. Some of the druid abilities which grant natural weapons may not work well with the original natural weapon system - but I am not sure.)
You appear to have failed to replace all instances of wisdom relating to cleric casting with charisma.
Flurry of Blows in your rules requires the monk's player to be made aware of the exact AC of all NPCs he might split his attacks onto. Many, if not most, GMs hide this information from the player by default.
Diamond Soul still has a "DESCRIPTION HERE" tag.
Thanks for the finds. It was never my intention to share enemy ACs with players; that was just a poorly worded ability on my part. All of those issues should be corrected in the most recent version.
Both sorcerers and wizards appear to be spontaneous casters. What is the purpose of having two spontaneous arcane casters using the same list?
My intention is that the class features and unique casting stats should be sufficient to distinguish them mechanically. Wizards are much better at rituals because rituals tend to require Knowledge skills, and their class features (particularly the sequencer/contengency abilities) reward preparation. Sorcerers are more spontaneous and flexible thanks to the versatile spellcaster and spellblend abilities. I admit that the difference is smaller than it used to be, but I believe that they still feel unique.
New version is up which corrects the mistakes Atarlost found. Soon, I hope to have revised/expanded cleric domain powers up.
TheJayde:
~I like the action points a little bit because it helps me differentiate the races more. And keep the races more in line. Unify them more with a racial thing. I liked that about 4E where each of the enemies all had one thing that really tied them together.
~Okay- yes. My way is more even, not necessarily balanced. True. Balance is all about the system and I definately understand the need for having low exploitatable stats for characters. For my system I'm trying to make things somewhat more balanced but with an ability to keep them from getting out of hand. 4E went way too far with the whole +1 to everything every other level or whatever it was, but I just never liked the idea that a grizzled fighter who has earned years of experience warring and earning scars... would just be easily confused by a low level bard who has a super high bluff/sleight of hand/hide check. or for that fighter to just be completley susceptible to every level 1 wizard with a charm person spell. I do like that there are low defenses to exploit, but that is from a DM view. From a player view, I will want to cover my bases a little bit and not feel a need to put resources into upping my weak stats to compensate.
~Yeah pretty much. I also think its easier to add plusses than to apply subtractions. I mostly like the flanking bonuses because I want there to be advantages to smart positioning... or just positioning in general that isn't charge in a mob.
Thank you Vadskye. I have yours to read now along with Kirthfinder and I just received my copy of Traveller 5 (656 pages) in the mail. No one may see me for a month. Or two :)
Awesome. I hope it works out well. (Note that the natural weapons were intended to work with my revisions which make natural weapons function almost exactly like regular weapons. Some of the druid abilities which grant natural weapons may not work well with the original natural weapon system - but I am not sure.)
Well, if needed, we'll tweak it here and there. The main thing is giving a strong identity to the character, providing it with options that aren't just borrowed from another class (like the druid domains in Pathfinder), but instead feel "special" and unique to that class.
Update: A new version is up. If you find it difficult to work with the single massive PDF file, I now have a solution! You can take a look at a version separated by chapter here.
The ranger and rogue have been substantially rewritten. Many of the ranger changes owe a debt to good ideas from Kirthfinder (though my version is still very distinct, so don't blame Kirth if you don't like it!). A number of errors and inconsistencies were also corrected. A brief summary of the changes to ranger and rogue follow:
Ranger:
- The core concept of the ranger is now that of a hunter and woodland warrior. I was confused before on exactly what it should be.
- New class feature: Quarry. The ranger can designate an enemy as his quarry a certain number of times per day as a swift action, and gets bonuses when fighting his quarry.
- New class feature: Ranger lore. Rangers get a ranger lore ability every 3 levels. Many iconic ranger abilities that fit the characters of some, but not all, rangers (such as the combat style feats) are now options within "ranger lore".
- Ranger no longer casts spells
- Other, more minor new features and level progression adjustments.
Rogue:
- Sneak attack progression is now d6 per four levels.
- New class feature: Ambush attack. The first sneak attack a rogue makes against a single foe in an encounter is an ambush attack. Ambush attacks add d6 extra damage, plus d6 per four levels. This encourages the rogue to move around the battlefield, taking ambush attacks against multiple foes.
- Additional advanced skill tricks were added.
- Two high-level rogue abilities were added: Jack of All Trades (all skills are class skills) and Master of All Trades (rogues have ranks in every skill except trained skills).
- Other minor changes and level progression adjustments.
I am very interested to see what people think of the revisions, and curious if there are any particular areas that people think need more work.
very interesting stuff. I'll be keeping an eye on this for sure.
very interesting stuff. I'll be keeping an eye on this for sure.
Excellent. I'll be updating soon with rewritten Cleric domain abilities and a new, more rigorous system for building spells. This will allow spells to be systematically compared them to each other and (hopefully) prevent accidentally creating overpowered spells, while also giving more tools for casters to customize existing spells with metamagic.
Thanks for the dl. Your work is beautiful. I fully respect the labor of love.
:3 Thank you very kindly. See, it's comments like that which just make my day.
Races
Every race gets a racial bonus feat. Each race has a specific list of bonus feats that it can choose. Culturally specific racial features, such as giant-fighting and weapon proficiencies, have been changed into racial feats to separate them from inherent physical aspects of the race.
Personally, I love this, and is something I've been tinkering with in my own homebrew. I'm glad that someone else was thinking along similar lines.
Overall, I liked quite a bit of what you did, but didn't have the time to finish. I'll read more of this tomorrow.
kudos on all the hard work! it looks lovely and I will probably "borrow" some of these ideas for my next campaign...
Update: A new version is up. If you find it difficult to work with the single massive PDF file, I now have a solution! You can take a look at a version separated by chapter here.
Uh, where are chapters 6 and 9?
Personally, I love this, and is something I've been tinkering with in my own homebrew. I'm glad that someone else was thinking along similar lines.
I love it when different people working independently come up with similar results. It makes me more confident that there is value in it.
Overall, I liked quite a bit of what you did, but didn't have the time to finish. I'll read more of this tomorrow.
Glad to hear it!
kudos on all the hard work! it looks lovely and I will probably "borrow" some of these ideas for my next campaign...
Feel free! That's what it's there for, after all. And if you do take anything specific, I always like hearing how it went. That way, if it causes a problem, I can try to improve it!
Uh, where are chapters 6 and 9?
My changes to those chapters were very marginal, like assuming that adventurers walk 10 hours a day instead of 8 hours a day. 95% of what you would read in those chapters is the same as the SRD, and a lot of the most interesting stuff that was originally in those chapters can't be legally included. It seemed like it would be kind of wasting people's time to treat them as being as important as, say, the Magic or Classes chapters. If you're curious what's in them, they are included in the full PDF.