|
Tels, if you don't mind it coming from a dragon, I will hug you. :D
You may have died in a ball of electricity just now, if so, I apologize.
I hate seeing things escalate to this point. :(
Personally, I really wish it was easier to make DEXy, nimble warriors work. As is, the concept lockout and system mastery requirements are just too high.
I don't think people should be painted as bashing or made out to be The Enemy just because they're unhappy with how those options have worked out.
Honestly, part of the problem is that pretty much every weapon is going to be wielded with a mixture of both dexterity and strength. Even a traditionally brute force weapon like a greataxe needs a decent amount of agility and precision if you want to hit the target somewhere that'll matter. Unfortunately, Pathfinder's combat model is a bit too abstract to really show the difference between weak but precise weapons vs. less precise but heavy-hitting ones. That's why I usually prefer systems where armor is a type of damage reduction rather than adding to your change to not be hit.** spoiler omitted **
Im doing something similar. Re-Arranging the stats a little bit. One thing that I am interested in hearing your opinion about is using the Wisdom based stat to roll for ranged attacks. I figure it works out because you can sort of reason the distance, travel time of the weapon and the enemy. Wisdom used in this as a quick gauge of the distances.
You can feel anyway you want about mathematics but the nice thing about mathematics is that it works the same way no matter how you feel about it. By the way, you are wrong. DPR on STR based builds will always outpace DEX builds, particularly if you charge them 2 feats to pull it off.
Tell you what, give me an example of the most egregious DEX to damage ability you can imagine and I will run DPR numbers on it at any level you like and compare it to a STR based character and a guarantee you that STR will win every time.
This isn't about trying to bleed power out of a build to make it the next best thing, it's about building a character that works/acts differently than the same non-caster we've been playing for 5 years AND doesn't suck/punish you for the effort.
I'm happy to indulge this idea, so I will. This may not be the place for it, so I will send you a private message as to hash this idea out further.
Not sure why you seem hell bent on declaring Bastard Swords and Katana as more agile weapons weapons than dagger, or rapier. But fine. You win, Slashing Grace is the single greatest feat in all of existence and I should be bowing down and worshipping Paizo's glory for daring to give me a feat of such sheer and absolute magnificence.
All Hail Paizo! All Hail the PDF! Glory be unto the Design Team! We are not worthy to be in their presence!
[/pointless snark]
[Edit] Can anyone point me to that add on for Firefox that allows me to hide all of a persons Posts? Cause that's where I'm at right now.
Oi. I never said that they were more agile, but they do require agility to maneuver the blade and strike accurately.
Disclaimer: This is not a dig at either Jayde or Tels,, but I can't help appreciate the irony.
For the past ten years I've seen hundreds if not thousands of posts across multiple forums arguing back and forth on why you could use weapon finesse with small fast light weapons like daggers and rapiers, but not with big cumbersome weapons like spears or katanas?
They used the exact same arguments as Jayde and Tels, only in reverse. It's like I'm caught in a mirror universe right now.
No offense taken. That's kind of awesome a little bit. Reflects upon the perspective nature of a debate.
Im doing something similar. Re-Arranging the stats a little bit. One thing that I am interested in hearing your opinion about is using the Wisdom based stat to roll for ranged attacks. I figure it works out because you can sort of reason the distance, travel time of the weapon and the enemy. Wisdom used in this as a quick gauge of the distances.Honestly, part of the problem is that pretty much every weapon is going to be wielded with a mixture of both dexterity and strength. Even a traditionally brute force weapon like a greataxe needs a decent amount of agility and precision if you want to hit the target somewhere that'll matter. Unfortunately, Pathfinder's combat model is a bit too abstract to really show the difference between weak but precise weapons vs. less precise but heavy-hitting ones. That's why I usually prefer systems where armor is a type of damage reduction rather than adding to your change to not be hit.** spoiler omitted **
If Wisdom worked for that, Wisdom (as a shorthand for instinct and intuition) would be used for all attack rolls. For ranged attack rolls, Dexterity is used because even if you know what you "should" be doing, you need the physical ability to actually do it. Likewise for melee, you either use Strength (as it determines how effectively you control a non-Light weapon) or Dexterity (as it determines your physical ability to put a light weapon exactly where it needs to go.
You could say that the "effective weight" of a weapon goes down as your Strength goes up, which is why Strength determines chance to hit. "Skill" with the weapon is represented by proficiency, BAB, feats like Weapon Focus, and class features like Weapon Training.
Arrogance? Why? Because I'm tired of the guy being bound and determined to treat me as some sort of mustache twirling villain out to destroy or ruin Paizo?
Do you see him attacking anyone else in this thread who also agrees the Slashing Grace feat is not a good one?
Go back and read his posts; a search by date in this thread tells me that this is his first post.
He quotes a post I made rebutting someones comment that, as customers, we just need to be happy with what we are given. I refuse to be a voiceless consumer, taking only what I'm given with no input on future decisions. His response to my post is that, essentially, I don't actually know what I want an that Paizo actually does know what I want so I need to accept what Paizo gives me because they are smarter and wiser than I ever could be.
How about this one? Wherein he demands that I produce undeniable proof that the Advanced Class Guide is full of errors. I even mentioned in the post that he is response to, that if he had actually been paying attention to the response to the ACG, that he would already know this. There's a whole thread dedicated to the errors in the book, including errors that make some options unplayable, like archetypes, or horrible spelling and grammar mistakes. Deadmanwalking has been going through the book chapter by chapter outlining every little error he's finding and it's staggering.
Or the one he made earlier here. Where he tells me that 1) Slashing Grace is a well designed and good feat, and 2) He tells me that my asking for a better designed feat bugs him.
Based off his previous response, being that Paizo is infinitely smarter and wiser than I am and that I don't actually know what it is that I want, it doesn't surprise me.
Or how about the fact that Slashing Grace absolutely failes on thematic levels when the most thematically appropriate weapons to be used with a dex to damage option, don't function with it. In his opinion, it is better for a bastard sword, or a battle axe, to have a dex to damage option, than it is for a dagger, or wakizashi.
I don't know where you get off calling me arrogant at all. I outlined all of the problems with this feat, and the overwhelming consensus of this thread and others, is that Slashing Grace is not a well designed feat and needs to be fixed.
If I had said I was a better game designer than Jason Bulmahn, or Sean K Reynolds, that would be arrogance. If I said I knew more about game design than Jayde does, that would be arrogance. But I didn't do that.
What I did, was get snarky because I am tired of the guy personally attacking me like I'm a villain out to hurt Paizo. I don't see him attacking anyone else who agrees with my initial post, or who else has posted information saying the same thing.
I also don't see him going off on other people who've said far more hostile things than I ever did in this very own thread. Like the people who've said things like "Martials can't have nice things" Or "Paizo only like Casters" or something to that vein.
Frankly, I just don't give a damn to see his comments anymore. I've been discussing this subject since the day the ACG came out, and have made multiple posts on nearly every page on this thread. I consider that a rarity as most OP abandon threads shortly after a few pages. So yes, I'm tired of people trying to attack me over this subject, especially when they're trying to paint me as some villain who doesn't even know what it is that I want out of the game and that I'm too stupid to know that Paizo is full of people infinitely smarter than I am.
So, I came off at first aggressive. I apologized for it. Everything beyond I believe I have been civil regarding. I don't know where you're getting the villain thing. If I think you're wrong, I'm not calling you evil or a villain or whatever. I just think you're wrong.
I would say I'm not attacking you or anyone in this thread... though again I came off really aggressive initially.
I didnt even ask for undeniable proof... just something.
You asking doesn't bug me. It was the demand. The demand that you get the specific thing you wanted. Though hey, that was before my apology so whatever. I find it annoying but wont hold it against you.
The slashing grace working for one hand weapons thematic to me to some degree. I've said it makes more sense for piercing weapons, but just because there is a missing thematic feat doesn't detract from this feat having some theme to it.
I think you should re-read my posts and look upon them with a less harsh light. Beyond the point where I apologize I believe I was targeting the arguments. I didn't even argue against your personal knowledge about fencing or question it... i just pointed out that it is not applicable to heavier slashing weapons.
Ignore me if you want, but why come to a place like this if you want to only be agreed with?
|
Shakes Hands with Tels
I feel your pain yet don't let it get to you. Every rpg company has it's fans who defend the company. The best thing to do is respectfully disagree and move on. That being said don't let anyone here stop you from posting anything negative towards Paizo. It's a forum to discuss both positive and negative stuff about Paizo. It's also not a echo chamber either. I was unhappy with the editing mistakes in the ACG. Continue to remain unhappy with the devs making the same mistakes over and over. Made worse by the fact that even after all this time they can't design new material properly sometimes. Either it's really good like Sacred Geometry. Or not do good like Slashing Grace. Or the fluff description if say a feat is amazing yet the crunch the opposite. I'm looking at you Craft Ooze.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure my opinion doesn't matter too much, but I personally think that Slashing Grace as a mechanic is sound. (I've had a homebrew feat that was basically Dex to Damage with one specific type of weapon with Weapon Focus and Weapon Finesse as a prereq for a long time now.) Rather, the implementation is a touch sloppy. ISlashing Grace has set a precedent that Paizo needs a unique feat to allow Dex to Damage with most of the weapons in the game, and the fact that the upcoming Fencing Grace feat allows Dex to Damage with one standard swashbuckler weapon (the rapier) but not all of them (every other light or one-handed piercing weapon) doesn't feel right either to me. (I am biased because I'm playing the flying blade swashbuckler in Pathfinder Society.)
Regardless, the feat would probably have been stronger if it was worded like this:
Blah Blah Blah Flavor Text.
Prerequisites: Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus, Dex 13.
Benefit: You may use your Dexterity bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls in place of your Strength with any weapon that you have selected with Weapon Focus. When wielding such a weapon in two hands, your Dexterity modifier is not multiplied by 1.5x times. Additionally, you may treat any light or one-handed weapon that you have selected with Weapon Focus as a one-handed piercing weapon for the purposes of feats and class features that require such weapons (such as a swashbuckler's or duelist's precise strike).
This isn't what happened, though, so we need to accept that Swashing Grace's design isn't perfect. Changing Slashing Grace to something like what I posted isn't an errata, it is a flat-out altercation and even if it was something that Paizo gave us before the next printing of the ACG, it would cause a LOT of confusion with people who don't read the message boards, which comprise a majority of Pathfinder players.
Additionally, the argument of whether Dex to Damage is appropriate for the game's realism or not is a moot one. It is in the game. It will soon be in the game again. That's just how it is.
Finally, my personal opinion is that the argument of "this weapon is wielded in this manner," is also a moot one. Nobody blinks twice when the wizard gets a new spell that pushes the boundaries of what magic can do in the game. Why are we (as a community) in such a mindset of forcing realism on martial characters but not spellcasters? Just because you're not using magic doesn't make you any less of a fantasy character, after all. Most of this argument comes down to, "Dumping Strength doesn't make sense for martial characters," and honestly, that's not a bad point to make. In my opinion, the fighter who dumps Intelligence is just as dubious as the swashbuckler who dumps Strength. But again, my opinion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Finally, my personal opinion is that the argument of "this weapon is wielded in this manner," is also a moot one. Nobody blinks twice when the wizard gets a new spell that pushes the boundaries of what magic can do in the game. Why are we (as a community) in such a mindset of forcing realism on martial characters but not spellcasters? Just because you're not using magic doesn't make you any less of a fantasy character, after all. Most of this argument comes down to, "Dumping Strength doesn't make sense for martial characters," and honestly, that's not a bad point to make. In my opinion, the fighter who dumps Intelligence is just as dubious as the swashbuckler who dumps Strength. But again, my opinion.
This is very true. It's a common trap to get drawn into "realism" arguments for martials (like I just did) while casters get a free pass because magic.
Im doing something similar. Re-Arranging the stats a little bit. One thing that I am interested in hearing your opinion about is using the Wisdom based stat to roll for ranged attacks. I figure it works out because you can sort of reason the distance, travel time of the weapon and the enemy. Wisdom used in this as a quick gauge of the distances.Honestly, part of the problem is that pretty much every weapon is going to be wielded with a mixture of both dexterity and strength. Even a traditionally brute force weapon like a greataxe needs a decent amount of agility and precision if you want to hit the target somewhere that'll matter. Unfortunately, Pathfinder's combat model is a bit too abstract to really show the difference between weak but precise weapons vs. less precise but heavy-hitting ones. That's why I usually prefer systems where armor is a type of damage reduction rather than adding to your change to not be hit.** spoiler omitted **If Wisdom worked for that, Wisdom (as a shorthand for instinct and intuition) would be used for all attack rolls. For ranged attack rolls, Dexterity is used because even if you know what you "should" be doing, you need the physical ability to actually do it. Likewise for melee, you either use Strength (as it determines how effectively you control a non-Light weapon) or Dexterity (as it determines your physical ability to put a light weapon exactly where it needs to go.
You could say that the "effective weight" of a weapon goes down as your Strength goes up, which is why Strength determines chance to hit. "Skill" with the weapon is represented by proficiency, BAB, feats like Weapon Focus, and class features like Weapon Training.
Well that is a good point, but I would say strength may be important to make sure that your blade is capable of making the attack in melee. . Particularly if it is a two handed weapon, or a longer weapon like a pike. That it is in position to make the attack, and then Dex to define your specific control over the weapon I guess it would mostly be a matter of assigning which is the base stat of a weapon type, and then granting lots of benefits through classes and feats that would modify or adjust the base stats and how you were attacking with it.
I'd like rolling con and str into one stat; by themselves, they are both boring and do few (although pretty important) stuff. By rolling it into one you'd make it much less dumpable (kinda like DEX). Of course this is going off of the idea that DEX shouldn't be mercilessly taxed with feats just to function.
That leaves space for a Perception stat so that Wis casters don't beat gosh darn rangers at being perceptive.
However, now that WIS has so few uses, it can be merged with CHA to become Willpower. That about balances out the stats between each other I think (though you end up with 5 stats instead of 6. Could add Luck, or something similar.)
I like the idea of merging STR/CON and WIS/CHA to end up with four attributes: Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, and Instinct.
I like the idea of merging STR/CON and WIS/CHA to end up with four attributes: Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, and Instinct.I'd like rolling con and str into one stat; by themselves, they are both boring and do few (although pretty important) stuff. By rolling it into one you'd make it much less dumpable (kinda like DEX). Of course this is going off of the idea that DEX shouldn't be mercilessly taxed with feats just to function.
That leaves space for a Perception stat so that Wis casters don't beat gosh darn rangers at being perceptive.
However, now that WIS has so few uses, it can be merged with CHA to become Willpower. That about balances out the stats between each other I think (though you end up with 5 stats instead of 6. Could add Luck, or something similar.)
I'm all for reducing the number of skills. Though, I feel like the current 3 physical, and 3 mental is good, but I wish these stats were more easily balanced.
I just wish Charisma was changed to like Personality, in that its how strong your personality is, but I could see that being combined with Wisdom too. I like personality because its just more accessible. You could use it for like a Barbarian Rage... thing. Or Paladin abilities.
That works too, honestly. I like the 5e solution of STR to both hit and damage with thrown weapons, and DEX to both hit and damage on missile weapons.
That does make for a more simple, and streamlined idea, but I think could have some thematic concept. Though, sometimes a game should just be easy to operate.
My own opinion goes the other way. I prefer the idea of charisma as a subset of instinct, knowing intuitively how best to respond to verbal and nonverbal cues to get the reaction you want. Charisma in its current form could be more accurately named Mojo.
I think a four-ability system sounds interesting. Maybe someone should make a new thread in the Homebrew / Suggestion boards to try out some ideas? :-)
I think a four-ability system sounds interesting. Maybe someone should make a new thread in the Homebrew / Suggestion boards to try out some ideas? :-)
I have a homebrew edition that I've been toying with that switches to a four attribute system.
It is amazing how much more balanced you can make the game when things like damage and health become linked, versus defense and speed, skills and magic, and then magical defenses and sociability.
I think a four-ability system sounds interesting. Maybe someone should make a new thread in the Homebrew / Suggestion boards to try out some ideas? :-)I have a homebrew edition that I've been toying with that switches to a four attribute system.
It is amazing how much more balanced you can make the game when things like damage and health become linked, versus defense and speed, skills and magic, and then magical defenses and sociability.
When you say you are toying with the idea, do you mean you are just considering it or you have taken some steps and written up something rough to test? I'm asking because I'd be very interested to see your implementation of such an idea if you have it.
When you say you are toying with the idea, do you mean you are just considering it or you have taken some steps and written up something rough to test? I'm asking because I'd be very interested to see your implementation of such an idea if you have it.I think a four-ability system sounds interesting. Maybe someone should make a new thread in the Homebrew / Suggestion boards to try out some ideas? :-)I have a homebrew edition that I've been toying with that switches to a four attribute system.
It is amazing how much more balanced you can make the game when things like damage and health become linked, versus defense and speed, skills and magic, and then magical defenses and sociability.
Sorry to hi-jack the reply, I breached this subject under a spoiler tag on the previous page. I have some stuff roughed out but nothing definitive yet. The biggest change I see with the 4 attributes in needing to add a 4th save.
I really feel the whole thing needs to be tied into a re-hashed and streamlined skills system, social "combat" system, and a heavy rework of the magic system to come more in line with words of power (but that doesn't suck. Ars Magica comes to mind.)
I am actually starting a playtest on some of these ideas this week. Rolling a few ideas out at a time to see how everything works. I'll keep notes and put something up in the HB section once I have a bit more data.
When you say you are toying with the idea, do you mean you are just considering it or you have taken some steps and written up something rough to test? I'm asking because I'd be very interested to see your implementation of such an idea if you have it.I think a four-ability system sounds interesting. Maybe someone should make a new thread in the Homebrew / Suggestion boards to try out some ideas? :-)I have a homebrew edition that I've been toying with that switches to a four attribute system.
It is amazing how much more balanced you can make the game when things like damage and health become linked, versus defense and speed, skills and magic, and then magical defenses and sociability.Sorry to hi-jack the reply, I breached this subject under a spoiler tag on the previous page. I have some stuff roughed out but nothing definitive yet. The biggest change I see with the 4 attributes in needing to add a 4th save.
I really feel the whole thing needs to be tied into a re-hashed and streamlined skills system, social "combat" system, and a heavy rework of the magic system to come more in line with words of power (but that doesn't suck. Ars Magica comes to mind.)
I am actually starting a playtest on some of these ideas this week. Rolling a few ideas out at a time to see how everything works. I'll keep notes and put something up in the HB section once I have a bit more data.
I missed that amid all the in-fighting, so thanks for pointing it out! Based on your proposed idea, I do have a couple of comments:
1. How will having four saves benefit martials over casters? You said in your post that casters will require all 4 stats with the implication that martials wouldn't, but by tying saves to all stats you are essentially making MAD everyone's problem to some extent. The use of two stats for casting is a large blow to caster SAD though.
2. The use of 4 saves makes sense if you only have four stats, but at the same time it adds another depth of incompatibility to the subsystem as it would affect every spell, monster ability, and class ability that uses a save. Perhaps instead of this I would propose keeping the 3 save system, but changing the way ability scores are implemented.
For instance, Will could be the average modifier of your charisma/intelligence (mental strength), Fort Strength/Charisma (physical ability and the mental fortitude to shake off physical pain), and Reflex Dex/Int (the reflexes and quick thinking to keep yourself safe).
In a similar but varied vein, perhaps lower/remove the good/bad saves bonus for classes and instead have each class either use the average of saves for poor and adding both modifiers together for good saves. That makes sense to me as a concept, but then again who knows how the actual math would vary compared to the base system; it may be over or under powered based on the core assumptions of what you should be able to handle at each level. It does have compatibility going for it as it only changes the definition of poor/good saves and would not require excessive refiling of each class.
When you say you are toying with the idea, do you mean you are just considering it or you have taken some steps and written up something rough to test? I'm asking because I'd be very interested to see your implementation of such an idea if you have it.I think a four-ability system sounds interesting. Maybe someone should make a new thread in the Homebrew / Suggestion boards to try out some ideas? :-)I have a homebrew edition that I've been toying with that switches to a four attribute system.
It is amazing how much more balanced you can make the game when things like damage and health become linked, versus defense and speed, skills and magic, and then magical defenses and sociability.Sorry to hi-jack the reply, I breached this subject under a spoiler tag on the previous page. I have some stuff roughed out but nothing definitive yet. The biggest change I see with the 4 attributes in needing to add a 4th save.
I really feel the whole thing needs to be tied into a re-hashed and streamlined skills system, social "combat" system, and a heavy rework of the magic system to come more in line with words of power (but that doesn't suck. Ars Magica comes to mind.)
I am actually starting a playtest on some of these ideas this week. Rolling a few ideas out at a time to see how everything works. I'll keep notes and put something up in the HB section once I have a bit more data.
I was doing the math and balancing myself. I figure that the fourth save would be something like bonus to your AC. Its not fully equal, but it provides some defensive stats to each of the four.
Strength = Fortitude
Dexterity = Reflex
Intellect = Will
Insight = AC
Oddly by combining the stats into four stats, I'm feeling that Dexterity is going to be slightly underused.
When you say you are toying with the idea, do you mean you are just considering it or you have taken some steps and written up something rough to test? I'm asking because I'd be very interested to see your implementation of such an idea if you have it.I think a four-ability system sounds interesting. Maybe someone should make a new thread in the Homebrew / Suggestion boards to try out some ideas? :-)I have a homebrew edition that I've been toying with that switches to a four attribute system.
It is amazing how much more balanced you can make the game when things like damage and health become linked, versus defense and speed, skills and magic, and then magical defenses and sociability.Sorry to hi-jack the reply, I breached this subject under a spoiler tag on the previous page. I have some stuff roughed out but nothing definitive yet. The biggest change I see with the 4 attributes in needing to add a 4th save.
I really feel the whole thing needs to be tied into a re-hashed and streamlined skills system, social "combat" system, and a heavy rework of the magic system to come more in line with words of power (but that doesn't suck. Ars Magica comes to mind.)
I am actually starting a playtest on some of these ideas this week. Rolling a few ideas out at a time to see how everything works. I'll keep notes and put something up in the HB section once I have a bit more data.
I missed that amid all the in-fighting, so thanks for pointing it out! Based on your proposed idea, I do have a couple of comments:
1. How will having four saves benefit martials over casters? You said in your post that casters will require all 4 stats with the implication that martials wouldn't, but by tying saves to all stats you are essentially making MAD everyone's problem to some extent. The use of two stats for casting is a large blow to caster SAD though.
2. The use of 4 saves makes...
I think that would be possible if you reduced the system to three attributes.
Body (STR + CON)
Sharpness (DEX + INT)
Willpower (CHA + WIS)
Or heck, just call the attributes fort, reflex, and will.
However, while I understand the desire to maintain backwards compatibility, I think that it will fast approach a point where that just isn't possible and the house rules will eventually be more like a new system.
The idea that martials would have an easier time with saves is that they would actually get high saves as part of their classes, while casters wouldn't. Fighter for example would get 3 of 4 good saves, vs wizard getting only 1. I would tag it to BAB so that 1/2 BAB got one good save, 3/4 gets 2 good saves, and full gets 3 good saves, still leaving the monk (who is now full BAB) with 4 good saves.
When you say you are toying with the idea, do you mean you are just considering it or you have taken some steps and written up something rough to test? I'm asking because I'd be very interested to see your implementation of such an idea if you have it.I think a four-ability system sounds interesting. Maybe someone should make a new thread in the Homebrew / Suggestion boards to try out some ideas? :-)I have a homebrew edition that I've been toying with that switches to a four attribute system.
It is amazing how much more balanced you can make the game when things like damage and health become linked, versus defense and speed, skills and magic, and then magical defenses and sociability.
I have some drafts.
The big thing is that I don't use saving throws, and I use two different progressions for different kinds of classes, similar to 5e's proficiency bonus (even though I wrote this before I read 5e).
Basically, every character has a Combat Prowess and a Magic Prowess bar, and their attributes (stats) determine an offensive aspect, and a defensive aspect of those two scores. Different 'classes' have different combinations of key scores so they fundamentally play differently.
Then, instead of incorporating feats like 3.X, instead you buy class features. They function much more generically so they are less likely to shoehorn you into a single niche of character. You could play a character who focuses on spellcasting and has both bardic music and a spellbook. Or focus on a bloodline and on witchcraft. Or just on one and really amp up that style.
Making each of the classes unique is a pretty important part, which is what has mainly slowed me down. I also only plan on having 4 different spell lists, and 4 different combat "styles" which function in a similar way to deeds and grit.
I have also thought about the idea of "AC" as the 4th save. Still not sure about it.
I have also thought about the idea of "AC" as the 4th save. Still not sure about it.
I'm actually working on a system of my own right now. Everything based on D6's. Takes a lot from different systems including 13th Age. Warhammer. Vampire the Masquerade. Pathfinder, and even some structural figures from D&D 4E.
Anyways, this whole thing has been interesting for the purpose of that experiment.
When you say you are toying with the idea, do you mean you are just considering it or you have taken some steps and written up something rough to test? I'm asking because I'd be very interested to see your implementation of such an idea if you have it.I think a four-ability system sounds interesting. Maybe someone should make a new thread in the Homebrew / Suggestion boards to try out some ideas? :-)I have a homebrew edition that I've been toying with that switches to a four attribute system.
It is amazing how much more balanced you can make the game when things like damage and health become linked, versus defense and speed, skills and magic, and then magical defenses and sociability.I have some drafts.
The big thing is that I don't use saving throws, and I use two different progressions for different kinds of classes, similar to 5e's proficiency bonus (even though I wrote this before I read 5e).
Basically, every character has a Combat Prowess and a Magic Prowess bar, and their attributes (stats) determine an offensive aspect, and a defensive aspect of those two scores. Different 'classes' have different combinations of key scores so they fundamentally play differently.
Then, instead of incorporating feats like 3.X, instead you buy class features. They function much more generically so they are less likely to shoehorn you into a single niche of character. You could play a character who focuses on spellcasting and has both bardic music and a spellbook. Or focus on a bloodline and on witchcraft. Or just on one and really amp up that style.
Making each of the classes unique is a pretty important part, which is what has mainly slowed me down. I also only plan on having 4 different spell lists, and 4 different combat "styles" which function in a similar way to deeds and grit.
Funny, the system I'm building requires that you buy your level with Xp, then you may buy a feat with each level (only 10 levels), and buy your Class Feature with Xp. Though you can buy levels without buying those other things and then fill that in later.
The system also assumes that you purchase only one class feature per level, which will help define how the character fights. A class is designed to require one primary stat, and then has two options for alternate stats that give definition to the style. Paladin is Charisma, with Will, and Strength as its subtypes. Will causes greater divine effects, where Strength provides greater direct combat effects.
The big thing is that I don't use saving throws, and I use two different progressions for different kinds of classes, similar to 5e's proficiency bonus (even though I wrote this before I read 5e).
Basically, every character has a Combat Prowess and a Magic Prowess bar, and their attributes (stats) determine an offensive aspect, and a defensive aspect of those two scores. Different 'classes' have different combinations of key scores so they fundamentally play differently.
Then, instead of incorporating feats like 3.X, instead you buy class features. They function much more generically so they are less likely to shoehorn you into a single niche of character. You could play a character who focuses on spellcasting and has both bardic music and a spellbook. Or focus on a bloodline and on witchcraft. Or just on one and really amp up that style.
Making each of the classes unique is a pretty important part, which is what has mainly slowed me down. I also only plan on having 4 different spell lists, and 4 different combat "styles" which function in a similar way to deeds and grit.
I'm unfamiliar with the 5e concept you mentioned, but what you are saying about saves reminds me of 4e did it (not meaning to say its a bad thing), where essentially your saves were just different sets of AC and casters rolled to hit; is that what you are saying?
If you are buying class features are you dropping the class chassis overall and just going with everyone starting with a blank slate for abilities or are you keeping classes but essentially offering weaker versions of core class abilities as feats? Regardless I can see how that would be slow work, with all there is to consider.
The big thing is that I don't use saving throws, and I use two different progressions for different kinds of classes, similar to 5e's proficiency bonus (even though I wrote this before I read 5e).
Basically, every character has a Combat Prowess and a Magic Prowess bar, and their attributes (stats) determine an offensive aspect, and a defensive aspect of those two scores. Different 'classes' have different combinations of key scores so they fundamentally play differently.
Then, instead of incorporating feats like 3.X, instead you buy class features. They function much more generically so they are less likely to shoehorn you into a single niche of character. You could play a character who focuses on spellcasting and has both bardic music and a spellbook. Or focus on a bloodline and on witchcraft. Or just on one and really amp up that style.
Making each of the classes unique is a pretty important part, which is what has mainly slowed me down. I also only plan on having 4 different spell lists, and 4 different combat "styles" which function in a similar way to deeds and grit.
I'm unfamiliar with the 5e concept you mentioned, but what you are saying about saves reminds me of 4e did it (not meaning to say its a bad thing), where essentially your saves were just different sets of AC and casters rolled to hit; is that what you are saying?
If you are buying class features are you dropping the class chassis overall and just going with everyone starting with a blank slate for abilities or are you keeping classes but essentially offering weaker versions of core class abilities as feats? Regardless I can see how that would be slow work, with all there is to consider.
Yes and Yes.