| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Following up with my previous post about spellcasting, spellcasting is noticeably harder than it used to be due to the new Concentration mechanics. It's a lot easier to deal with Concentration checks overall though since things that pester Concentration apply modifiers rather than forcing lots of checks (I mentioned this many pages ago).
But the really big difference is how things like status ailments tend to make Concentrating harder. "1/2 ongoing damage" isn't a thing with Concentration anymore, instead effects like Burning or Corrosion add a flat +2 to the DC. Similarly, being fatigued or exhausted make spellcasting harder as well (+2 DC for fatigued, +4 for exhausted), making those no longer problems that exist only for martials.
The basic parts is that this makes it much easier to trouble a caster by harassing them. A warrior that pelts a mage with an alchemist fire and then moves up onto them has reduced the mage's chance to succeed by 10% and now forces a roll when the mage could have taken 10 on the check.
Similar issues like casting in hurricane winds, while entangled, grappled, wearing heavier armors, and so forth reduce the chances of succeeding at your Concentration check.
The DCs for casting higher level spells rise noticeably.
DCs by Spell Level
Tier I
1st: 12
2nd: 14
3rd: 16
Tier II
4th: 23
5th: 25
6th: 27
Tier III
7th: 34
8th: 36
9th: 38
Tier IV
10th: 45
11th: 47
(Note: Tier 4 spells, that is the 10th and 11th spells, are very hard to take 10 on unless you've got some sort of buffs to your Concentration checks from certain feats or magic items. This is because the average modifier for a caster at 20th level is about +30, which means taking 10 would equate to DC 40.)
Since Concentration checks are Level+Mind+1d20, lower level spells are easier to cast in armor or under duress. This means that if you stick with mostly low level spells, Paladin-type casters will generally have little trouble casting their highest level spells (they get spells slower but they don't get Concentration slower).
So by the time a Paladin-chassis caster reaches 3rd level spells (at 8th level), the have a base Concentration of +8 before ability scores, which after factoring in ability scores (stats scale more smoothly than in Pathfinder) means that even if he's wearing full plate and carrying a tower shield he probably won't fail to cast his spells.
Full casters on the other hand are always pushing the limits so staying nekkid and unhindered are critical for pushing their highest level spells. A caster with poor Concentration or under a lot of stress may have to resort to sticking with low level spells to avoid biffing too often.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How the Cultists try to bare witness to our Lord Ashiel in all his divine might.
Thanks for having us Jill. :o
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
11th level spells? When did it change to that? Last time you posted about spell levels, they were 1st - 10th, why the bump?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
11th level spells? When did it change to that? Last time you posted about spell levels, they were 1st - 10th, why the bump?
It's not so much a bump as a re-alignment. Given the changes to cantrips, we discussed it and realized that level 0 spells were essentially getting the upgrade anyway and rather than cause confusion with new players they got turned to level 1 spells.
It's actually the same number of spell levels as before. For example, in Pathfinder even though spells go up to 9th level, there are actually 10 levels of spells. In this, they go up to 11th level but there are actually 11 levels of spells.
11th level spells come online at 20th level as a full caster. They are essentially the capstone of magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would be fine with that. I'm not actually running any games at the moment though (much to the chagrin of my friends on Discord I fear). In an effort to force myself to be more productive the next game I run will be with d20 legends, even if it's a barebones version of it. :PDo I get to sit in on one of your games and see the famous master of deadly encounters in action as a reward? :)I would also like to say that your post was so beautifully eloquent and hit on everything I was trying to much better than I was managing to do so. Many props.Swordsaged by Klara. :PToo slow, my lord.
Think I said it before but when that happens you're probably going to have a small army watching, including myself :p. Probably just as many wishing they could play haha.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Think I said it before but when that happens you're probably going to have a small army watching, including myself :p. Probably just as many wishing they could play haha.I would be fine with that. I'm not actually running any games at the moment though (much to the chagrin of my friends on Discord I fear). In an effort to force myself to be more productive the next game I run will be with d20 legends, even if it's a barebones version of it. :PDo I get to sit in on one of your games and see the famous master of deadly encounters in action as a reward? :)I would also like to say that your post was so beautifully eloquent and hit on everything I was trying to much better than I was managing to do so. Many props.Swordsaged by Klara. :PToo slow, my lord.
I'm really not sure it'd be all that interesting to watch. Most of my online games are text-based over maptools (I type pretty quickly and I feel like I give better descriptions and a more immersive RP experience with presenting NPC dialog like that), so unless you enjoy reading the interactions between PCs and NPCs and such, it'd probably be pretty boring. ^.^"
I like it though. It's really easy to get immersed when the succubus that's teasing the party's Paladin isn't a slightly obese guy with a beard. I mean, imagine what Game of Thrones would look like if every character in the show was played by the writer. It would be simultaneously hilarious and horrific. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...when that happens you're probably going to have a small army watching...
We art legion! Gl'ry to the culteth of Ashiel!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know I keep trying to make my Will saves vs inflate ego but if you guys keep this up I'm going to roll a 1 eventually. (^//^)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know I keep trying to make my Will saves vs inflate ego but if you guys keep this up I'm going to roll a 1 eventually. (^//^)
Apologies if this is really, really blunt, but you don't really have a lot of competition.
It is refreshing talking to a designer who understands high school probability and the basic realities of d20 RPG play. I die a little every time I see crap like a major freelancer/3pp dev and a design team member comment that weapon training is worth far more than a simple +1 to attack and damage because it applies to multiple weapons. It feels like I am watching someone who believes "heavy things fall faster" design a high altitude surveillance plane.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know I keep trying to make my Will saves vs inflate ego but if you guys keep this up I'm going to roll a 1 eventually. (^//^)Apologies if this is really, really blunt, but you don't really have a lot of competition.
It is refreshing talking to a designer who understands high school probability and the basic realities of d20 RPG play. I die a little every time I see crap like a major freelancer/3pp dev and a design team member comment that weapon training is worth far more than a simple +1 to attack and damage because it applies to multiple weapons. It feels like I am watching someone who believes "heavy things fall faster" design a high altitude surveillance plane.
Heavy things do fall faster, on average. Air resistance is still a thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Heavy things do fall faster, on average. Air resistance is still a thing.You know I keep trying to make my Will saves vs inflate ego but if you guys keep this up I'm going to roll a 1 eventually. (^//^)Apologies if this is really, really blunt, but you don't really have a lot of competition.
It is refreshing talking to a designer who understands high school probability and the basic realities of d20 RPG play. I die a little every time I see crap like a major freelancer/3pp dev and a design team member comment that weapon training is worth far more than a simple +1 to attack and damage because it applies to multiple weapons. It feels like I am watching someone who believes "heavy things fall faster" design a high altitude surveillance plane.
Great. Do you think that holding that belief as a universal rule is anything other than sheer ignorant stupidity when applied to designing a large heavy object that can cruise through the air with almost no effort whatsoever*?
*as well as all the other things a plane needs to do, planes be hard, yo!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know I keep trying to make my Will saves vs inflate ego but if you guys keep this up I'm going to roll a 1 eventually. (^//^)Apologies if this is really, really blunt, but you don't really have a lot of competition.
Sounded like a compliment to me. 0:3
EDIT: Also phrases like "the caster/martial disparity is a myth propagated by people with an agenda" make my physically ill and mentally pained. If I ever say anything like this, you have permission to steal all of my dice.
Heavy things do fall faster, on average. Air resistance is still a thing.You know I keep trying to make my Will saves vs inflate ego but if you guys keep this up I'm going to roll a 1 eventually. (^//^)Apologies if this is really, really blunt, but you don't really have a lot of competition.
It is refreshing talking to a designer who understands high school probability and the basic realities of d20 RPG play. I die a little every time I see crap like a major freelancer/3pp dev and a design team member comment that weapon training is worth far more than a simple +1 to attack and damage because it applies to multiple weapons. It feels like I am watching someone who believes "heavy things fall faster" design a high altitude surveillance plane.
Great. Do you think that holding that belief as a universal rule is anything other than sheer ignorant stupidity when applied to designing a large heavy object that can cruise through the air with almost no effort whatsoever*?
*as well as all the other things a plane needs to do, planes be hard, yo!
Hmm. Considering that what I said was basically a rephrased version of Neuton's second law, and Neuton's second law is a pretty important thing to take into account when designing planes...I'd say that not holding that belief as a general rule would be pretty stupid if you were designing planes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know I keep trying to make my Will saves vs inflate ego but if you guys keep this up I'm going to roll a 1 eventually. (^//^)
Eh, if you ever start to do bad things, we will bring you down to earth quickly enough with insults and ridicule.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know I keep trying to make my Will saves vs inflate ego but if you guys keep this up I'm going to roll a 1 eventually. (^//^)Apologies if this is really, really blunt, but you don't really have a lot of competition.Sounded like a compliment to me. 0:3
EDIT: Also phrases like "the caster/martial disparity is a myth propagated by people with an agenda" make my physically ill and mentally pained. If I ever say anything like this, you have permission to steal all of my dice.
IIRC, I saw a similar attitude from James Jacobs during the whole "Iomedae is a sociopathic torturer" debacle. It wasn't quite as blatent, but the impression I got was that he *seemed* to think that the problem was in someone else's head, and the only mistake he made was not accounting for how bad some people other than him are.
At least James isn't primarily a rules guy, though. That attitude doesn't reflect well on him, but he doesn't have a job which depends on a thoughtful, level headed and pragmatic analysis of the realities of an issue. I find things like Jason apparently wanting the UMonk to be as weak as the core monk to be far more disturbing, because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the problems which Unchained was supposed to fix.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know I keep trying to make my Will saves vs inflate ego but if you guys keep this up I'm going to roll a 1 eventually. (^//^)Eh, if you ever start to do bad things, we will bring you down to earth quickly enough with insults and ridicule.
I approve of this whole heartily. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know I keep trying to make my Will saves vs inflate ego but if you guys keep this up I'm going to roll a 1 eventually. (^//^)Apologies if this is really, really blunt, but you don't really have a lot of competition.Sounded like a compliment to me. 0:3
EDIT: Also phrases like "the caster/martial disparity is a myth propagated by people with an agenda" make my physically ill and mentally pained. If I ever say anything like this, you have permission to steal all of my dice.
IIRC, I saw a similar attitude from James Jacobs during the whole "Iomedae is a sociopathic torturer" debacle. It wasn't quite as blatent, but the impression I got was that he *seemed* to think that the problem was in someone else's head, and the only mistake he made was not accounting for how bad some people other than him are.
At least James isn't primarily a rules guy, though. That attitude doesn't reflect well on him, but he doesn't have a job which depends on a thoughtful, level headed and pragmatic analysis of the realities of an issue. I find things like Jason apparently wanting the UMonk to be as weak as the core monk to be far more disturbing, because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the problems which Unchained was supposed to fix.
I hadn't heard about that debacle. Is it similar to how unfortunate the implications that, Sarenrae providing spells to a militant sect of religious extremists is while supposedly being a goddess of nothing but the most glorious of peace and goodness, are?
EDIT: Who also tend to share certain cultural and aesthetic similarities with entities that exist in reality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably.
I believe I saw something from James in his Ask Me Anything thread that Sarenrae is getting close to intervening, though.
I guess it depends just how bad these religious extremists are. Are they Stereotypical Zealous Paladin style extremist, or have they gone the full Miko?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably.
I believe I saw something from James in his Ask Me Anything thread that Sarenrae is getting close to intervening, though.
I guess it depends just how bad these religious extremists are. Are they Stereotypical Zealous Paladin style extremist, or have they gone the full Miko?
I dunno. I've never known militant religious extremists who seem to think killing people in the name of a goddess of peace to be anything short of gone too far.
There's not even a need to intervene though. They have made it so clear on so many occasions that divine magic just will not work without your deity granting your spells (which is why you cannot have pantheon clerics or clerics of concepts or ideals).
All she'd have to do is just abstain from granting them spells. The moment that those guys went nutters they would stop getting spells and clearly see that she was displeased, and when they stopped being militant extremists, they could have their spells back.
What is there to intervene?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a bit in Wrath of the Righteous where Iomedae, basically, tortures the PCs if they don't align to her beliefs. It's a grossly summed up version if the events, but there is a bit of accuracy to it. She asks questions, and if she doesn'tlikne your answer, she blasts you with divine power, dealing damage. You can die during this interrogation.
But it's all okay, because she revives you and heals your wounds, right?
Yeah... No. There is a serious disconnect with how a Lawful Good goddess would act.
I line Jason, but... again, there is a disconnect. Unchained Monk was weaker than its current version when got done with revisions. It's worth noting, the Unchained Monk traded a lot of its defensive strength for slightly more offensive power. An Unchained Monk is, basically, a side-grade to a Monk with archetypes. Then there is the whole weapon cord thing, when he spent an afternoon trying to catch his computer mouse in his hand, couldn't do it easily, and decided to nerf weapon cords because it must be impossible to do what it used to do. Which was retrieve a weapon as a free action.
Some of his decisions... We just don't like to think about the rational behind them. If it wasn't for Mark, I shudder to think what the Unchained Monk would have been like.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a bit in Wrath of the Righteous where Iomedae, basically, tortures the PCs if they don't align to her beliefs. It's a grossly summed up version if the events, but there is a bit of accuracy to it. She asks questions, and if she doesn'tlikne your answer, she blasts you with divine power, dealing damage. You can die during this interrogation.
But it's all okay, because she revives you and heals your wounds, right?
Yeah... No. There is a serious disconnect with how a Lawful Good goddess would act.
I line Jason, but... again, there is a disconnect. Unchained Monk was weaker than its current version when got done with revisions. It's worth noting, the Unchained Monk traded a lot of its defensive strength for slightly more offensive power. An Unchained Monk is, basically, a side-grade to a Monk with archetypes. Then there is the whole weapon cord thing, when he spent an afternoon trying to catch his computer mouse in his hand, couldn't do it easily, and decided to nerf weapon cords because it must be impossible to do what it used to do. Which was retrieve a weapon as a free action.
Some of his decisions... We just don't like to think about the rational behind them. If it wasn't for Mark, I shudder to think what the Unchained Monk would have been like.
Dear god that's awful. :|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could see a justification if the extremists are all for stabbing really unambiguously bad people but are otherwise upstanding champions of good and purity. The real question is if they are actually like that in practice...
Ok, the Inner Sea World Guide basically portrays the Cult of the Dawnflower as a group that pushs the Justice aspect of Sarenrae aggressively over her more forgiving aspects. Some of the leadership is in flat out war mongering territory, but the lower echalons of the cult are starting to rail against them. It is really vague, though. I don't know enough about places like Taldor to really get the implications of wanting to go to war against them, though. There are a couple of really unpleasant hints though, like the cult returning to a country by flat out murdering their leader.
Inner sea magic contains nothing of relevance. Neither does Faiths of Purity.
Inner Sea Gods give a little more detail. Outside of dealing with "bad guys", the Cult of the Dawnflower basically behaves like other worshipers of Sarenrae with the exception of basically being down with slavery so long as it appears to be humane (I find this hilariously naive). When in a conflict with "sinners or nonbelievers", they are utterly ruthless and treat everyone as if they are complete monsters.
Yeah, I don't know how the cult doesn't have priests falling left, right and center. One misidentified innocent noncombatant, and that *should* be it.
Ok, Faiths and Philosophies uses the term "nonbelievers" when describing the people the cult wants to wage war on (in the name of justice, of course). This is starting to look more and more questionable. I wonder...
...wait a minute...
Many wonder how it is possible for variations in a church's doctrine to crop up when it is possible to simply ask the deity's opinion on the matter through the use of mid-level spells. In practice, however, most clerics will never have the power to gain more than a handful of enigmatic hints at their deity's true opinions. Few deities have strong opinions regarding the correct expression of a religion in the mortal world. This is in large part because mortals have so many natural limitations on their ability to learn and understand the true meaning of
the faith. Their religious practices will always be merely approximations of the unfathomable truth, so attitude shifts or even overt schisms in mortal churches are rarely dramatic enough to draw direct divine attention.
I...I...I don't know what to say to this. It is so...condescending...that I don't think there is a point to any more research. It screams "things are like the way they are because you are too stupid to understand, don't question what this book says because you are stupid. How does this book know you are stupid? *(^& you, that's why."
Dear god that's awful. :|There is a bit in Wrath of the Righteous where Iomedae, basically, tortures the PCs if they don't align to her beliefs. It's a grossly summed up version if the events, but there is a bit of accuracy to it. She asks questions, and if she doesn'tlikne your answer, she blasts you with divine power, dealing damage. You can die during this interrogation.
But it's all okay, because she revives you and heals your wounds, right?
Yeah... No. There is a serious disconnect with how a Lawful Good goddess would act.
I line Jason, but... again, there is a disconnect. Unchained Monk was weaker than its current version when got done with revisions. It's worth noting, the Unchained Monk traded a lot of its defensive strength for slightly more offensive power. An Unchained Monk is, basically, a side-grade to a Monk with archetypes. Then there is the whole weapon cord thing, when he spent an afternoon trying to catch his computer mouse in his hand, couldn't do it easily, and decided to nerf weapon cords because it must be impossible to do what it used to do. Which was retrieve a weapon as a free action.
Some of his decisions... We just don't like to think about the rational behind them. If it wasn't for Mark, I shudder to think what the Unchained Monk would have been like.
I believe his rationale was that the Iomedae shouldn't have to tolerate PCs being complete &%*%wads to her because they think they can get away with it.
As far as I can tell, James had that segment written with the underlying assumption that the PCs were going to either be totally fawning adorers of Iomedae who want to bow and scrape to her every wish, or disruptive &*%holes. The text didn't even appear to consider the possibility that the PCs might actually have legitimate disagreement with what Iomedae expects of them or the way she behaves - she basically treats the PCs like she has the right to do what the heck she wants with them and they already have the responsibility to follow her every wish (neither of which are true). The sheer detail of the behavior that she expects is also just bizarre, and her response if the PCs don't match it can be sadistic.
Iomedae wants to know that the PCs understand the history of her ongoing war against evil in all its forms. The second part of her question is deliberately openended and designed both to make a devotee of law and good squirm and to give them room to brag of their good deeds . Iomedae is looking for both self- confidence and humility in this answer, and as long as one player roleplays an answer in this manner, she is pleased.
Failure: If the question is not answered correctly and at least one PC doesn't present himself as humble or confident, Iomedae frowns and shakes her head. She nods to the unseen choir, saying "We must wake them up, these sleeping children. Where are my bold heroes of the Fifth
Crusade?" A moment later, the sound of the choir blasts out from all directions, causing each PC to shudder and shake in divinely inspired awe, and dealing 5d6 points of sonic damage to each PC (Fortitude DC 25 half). Iomedae does, however, allow the PCs to use healing magic to
recover from this damage before the next question.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Holy crap. :|
5d6 damage is like hitting people with a fireball. It's not even nonlethal damage. This scene makes Imodae seem more like Gozer from Ghostbusters than a goddess of law and goodness.
Hurting, oppressing, and killing is strait up evil.
EDIT: Hell, even my villains by the large aren't prone to just blasting people because they didn't get the answer they wanted the way they wanted it. That would be a sign of being an incredibly disturbed and sociopathic individual.
My PCs have actually interacted with deities in my games on occasion, sometimes with the deity being in disguise. The deities didn't smite them for being rude to them. That would be like setting a child on fire.
I could see a justification if the extremists are all for stabbing really unambiguously bad people but are otherwise upstanding champions of good and purity. The real question is if they are actually like that in practice...
***research research research***
Ok, the Inner Sea World Guide basically portrays the Cult of the Dawnflower as a group that pushs the Justice aspect of Sarenrae aggressively over her more forgiving aspects. Some of the leadership is in flat out war mongering territory, but the lower echalons of the cult are starting to rail against them. It is really vague, though. I don't know enough about places like Taldor to really get the implications of wanting to go to war against them, though. There are a couple of really unpleasant hints though, like the cult returning to a country by flat out murdering their leader.
***research research research***
Inner sea magic contains nothing of relevance. Neither does Faiths of Purity.
***research research research***
Inner Sea Gods give a little more detail. Outside of dealing with "bad guys", the Cult of the Dawnflower basically behaves like other worshipers of Sarenrae with the exception of basically being down with slavery so long as it appears to be humane (I find this hilariously naive). When in a conflict with "sinners or nonbelievers", they are utterly ruthless and treat everyone as if they are complete monsters.Yeah, I don't know how the cult doesn't have priests falling left, right and center. One misidentified innocent noncombatant, and that *should* be it.
***research research research***
Ok, Faiths and Philosophies uses the term "nonbelievers" when describing the people the cult wants to wage war on (in the name of justice, of course). This is starting to look more and more questionable. I wonder......wait a minute...
BUT THE DEITY SAYS... wrote:
Many wonder how it is possible for variations in a church's doctrine to crop up when it is possible to simply ask the deity's opinion on the matter through the use of mid-level spells. In practice, however, most clerics will never have the power to gain more than a handful of enigmatic hints at their deity's true opinions. Few deities have strong opinions regarding the correct expression of a religion in the mortal world. This is in large part because mortals have so many natural limitations on their ability to learn and understand the true meaning of
the faith. Their religious practices will always be merely approximations of the unfathomable truth, so attitude shifts or even overt schisms in mortal churches are rarely dramatic enough to draw direct divine attention.I...I...I don't know what to say to this. It is so...condescending...that I don't think there is a point to any more research. It screams "things are like the way they are because you are too stupid to understand, don't question what this book says because you are stupid. How does this book know you are stupid? *(^& you, that's why."
Maybe the Gods are such aloft, distant beings (yea even the good ones), so far removed from mortal concerns, that they simply don´t see what actually happens on the material plane.
Maybe they are busy leading celestial armies against demonic hordes across the outer planes. Maybe they are holding back the borders from this or that plane from spilling into theirs...Or maybe they just don´t care about their mortal followers or only use them as pawns against the other mortal followers of other gods.
There are a lot of possible explanations, but you are right, that one is very poor.
Holy crap. :|
5d6 damage is like hitting people with a fireball. It's not even nonlethal damage. This scene makes Imodae seem more like Gozer from Ghostbusters than a goddess of law and goodness.
Hurting, oppressing, and killing is strait up evil.
EDIT: Hell, even my villains by the large aren't prone to just blasting people because they didn't get the answer they wanted the way they wanted it. That would be a sign of being an incredibly disturbed and sociopathic individual.
My PCs have actually interacted with deities in my games on occasion, sometimes with the deity being in disguise. The deities didn't smite them for being rude to them. That would be like setting a child on fire.
Read this thread for more info, and some statements from James.
I like how at one point James says that the damage is as high as it was because he wanted the PCs to feel like there was risk.
Setting aside all the insane things that James apparently didn't intend, the "risk" is that the PCs will be executed by a deity of Law and Good if that deity feels that they aren't up to scratch as champions of justice. I can't express how utterly bonkers that is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Think I said it before but when that happens you're probably going to have a small army watching, including myself :p. Probably just as many wishing they could play haha.I would be fine with that. I'm not actually running any games at the moment though (much to the chagrin of my friends on Discord I fear). In an effort to force myself to be more productive the next game I run will be with d20 legends, even if it's a barebones version of it. :PDo I get to sit in on one of your games and see the famous master of deadly encounters in action as a reward? :)I would also like to say that your post was so beautifully eloquent and hit on everything I was trying to much better than I was managing to do so. Many props.Swordsaged by Klara. :PToo slow, my lord.I'm really not sure it'd be all that interesting to watch. Most of my online games are text-based over maptools (I type pretty quickly and I feel like I give better descriptions and a more immersive RP experience with presenting NPC dialog like that), so unless you enjoy reading the interactions between PCs and NPCs and such, it'd probably be pretty boring. ^.^"
I like it though. It's really easy to get immersed when the succubus that's teasing the party's Paladin isn't a slightly obese guy with a beard. I mean, imagine what Game of Thrones would look like if every character in the show was played by the writer. It would be simultaneously hilarious and horrific. :P
I do most my not pathfinder via text. Course that;s all free form sos tory based and such. Not sure there's mechanics that could accept the uh... Activities some of the chars get up too :p
I do most my not pathfinder via text. Course that;s all free form sos tory based and such. Not sure there's mechanics that could accept the uh... Activities some of the chars get up too :pThink I said it before but when that happens you're probably going to have a small army watching, including myself :p. Probably just as many wishing they could play haha.I would be fine with that. I'm not actually running any games at the moment though (much to the chagrin of my friends on Discord I fear). In an effort to force myself to be more productive the next game I run will be with d20 legends, even if it's a barebones version of it. :PDo I get to sit in on one of your games and see the famous master of deadly encounters in action as a reward? :)I would also like to say that your post was so beautifully eloquent and hit on everything I was trying to much better than I was managing to do so. Many props.Swordsaged by Klara. :PToo slow, my lord.I'm really not sure it'd be all that interesting to watch. Most of my online games are text-based over maptools (I type pretty quickly and I feel like I give better descriptions and a more immersive RP experience with presenting NPC dialog like that), so unless you enjoy reading the interactions between PCs and NPCs and such, it'd probably be pretty boring. ^.^"
I like it though. It's really easy to get immersed when the succubus that's teasing the party's Paladin isn't a slightly obese guy with a beard. I mean, imagine what Game of Thrones would look like if every character in the show was played by the writer. It would be simultaneously hilarious and horrific. :P
I have legitimately considered writing mechanics that would be involved with those sorts of things. I have some special friends with special needs. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay so, it's super embarrassing because so much of it is dirty. (~//~)
But HERE is some of the stuff that's been produced.
Please don't hate me! (%o%)
It's so ugly. DX
EDIT: It will eventually be pretty and properly edited like this thing, I promise. (Q_Q)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Soul crushing embarrassment aside, a few things to point out that were added recently.
The Fighting Defensively mechanics are adjusted to give a flat -2/+2. However you can now reserve attacks and use them to parry if you are attacked before your next turn. This can be combined with the dual-wielding option to use your off-hand weapon purely for parrying (off hand weapon can be a shield as well). Higher level characters can potentially reserve quite a lot of attacks for parry attempts.
A recent hotfix made heroic strikes harder to parry.
Dual-wielding is simplified significantly. Making a flurry of unarmed attacks is just dual-wielding with unarmed strikes (which are an exception to the rule that you can't dual wield without using multiple weapons).
The Run action was replaced with Sprinting. Sprinting is kind of like Run broken down into major or full actions and is a good idea if you're trying to do the Hollywood running dodge for cover.
I...I do most my not pathfinder via text. Course that;s all free form sos tory based and such. Not sure there's mechanics that could accept the uh... Activities some of the chars get up too :pThink I said it before but when that happens you're probably going to have a small army watching, including myself :p. Probably just as many wishing they could play haha.I would be fine with that. I'm not actually running any games at the moment though (much to the chagrin of my friends on Discord I fear). In an effort to force myself to be more productive the next game I run will be with d20 legends, even if it's a barebones version of it. :PDo I get to sit in on one of your games and see the famous master of deadly encounters in action as a reward? :)I would also like to say that your post was so beautifully eloquent and hit on everything I was trying to much better than I was managing to do so. Many props.Swordsaged by Klara. :PToo slow, my lord.I'm really not sure it'd be all that interesting to watch. Most of my online games are text-based over maptools (I type pretty quickly and I feel like I give better descriptions and a more immersive RP experience with presenting NPC dialog like that), so unless you enjoy reading the interactions between PCs and NPCs and such, it'd probably be pretty boring. ^.^"
I like it though. It's really easy to get immersed when the succubus that's teasing the party's Paladin isn't a slightly obese guy with a beard. I mean, imagine what Game of Thrones would look like if every character in the show was played by the writer. It would be simultaneously hilarious and horrific. :P
Poke over to ULMF and check out Dark Gate if you like. Far from perfect but it might get you some ideas mechanically. NSFW obviously for those not catching onto context. Dark Gate's getting a v2 soon, though progress has been slow on the final bits.
I myself been helping with world building in other groups there, but that's all in googledocs and such.
That definitely sounds interesting I assume if i keep an eye on this thread when something hard comes out ill be made aware yes?
I've personally always thought about trying my hand at game design but it always seemed daunting and really never enough time on my hands.The idea of having it online like the srd is good makes it an evolving living thing almost.
If you are interested in d20legends, you can skim my favourites. At some point I got tired of searching for specific posts I wanted to show my friends, so I went through this thread and favourited every post I could see myself wanting to look up later on, which includes everything related to d20legends.
>TheAlicornSage said:RPGs are dynamic, they are about being part of a story, not about proving skill at all. The point of an rpg is the story.
That's...just false. I could name 10 "points" of RPGs (reasons people play them) without stopping to draw breath that don't relate to experiencing the story in the slightest. If you like RPGs because you like stories, it doesn't mean that everyone else does. But mechanical systems should generally aim in their design to support the playstyles of all their players, not just some of them.
--
>I also don't see any problem with the subjective value of a +2
Problem is that Pathfinder assumes that +2 provides you with the same power boost all across the board, while if you were to switch to 3d6 it wouldn't be. That would mean that relative power of all spells, abilities, feats and so on that provide a set numerical bonus would shift completely unpredictably. Do you know how many abilities, spells and feats that is? That's right, majority of them. So after this shift to a new dice set you would have to go over the whole system, check wherever things just broke unpredictably, shift most of the things around, probably scrap half of the stuff, certainly scrap the bestiary... Then you would have to test the system for months to see if you missed some weird combination that would completely break things. And all that for what? Rolls being more average?
>About story, or not.
Poorly worded, sorry.
RPGs are the only kind of game that can be all about the story.
RPGs are not just a game, they are a unique medium for story telling and story creating.
They can be treated like just a game, but a game is only a tiny piece of what an rpg can be. You can optimize a system for gaming or storytelling, but trying for both is rather pointless and extremely difficult. Understanding that rpgs are a medium for storytelling is rather important to designing them properly.
===========
3d6 for d20
Firstly, d20 is not simple pass fail, though not in an obvious manner. (combat seems to be nearly an exception though.) The results actually have meaning. A bell curve means you will get average results more often than extreme results. In a purely pass/fail mechanic, there is no average thus it isn't an issue, but with d20, the result says how awesome/sucky the character did before even comparing it to a dc.
Compare jumping. A flat curve like d20 says you are an inconsistent jumper. You might jump 7 feet then jump 22 feet then jump 11 feet. There is no consistency, so you can't have a reasonable prediction of how far you can jump. But with a bell curve, you normally jump X feet, plus or minus a few, but yet you might still trip and do horribly or pull the amazing out of your something, but those would be special occasions far outside your normal level of performance.
A flat d20 though has no "normal" performance, only a range of min and max.
Also, a +2 is the same across the board. It shifts your average performance up by 2 points. It doesn't shift power levels unpredictably, it narrows the field. Instead of having a wide range of very likely results, you have a narrow range of very likely results, but you also gain a range of not likely results, which are more valuable than the likely results. Rolling an 18 on 3d6 is far more epic and memorable than rolling a 20 on a d20. I don't even remember half the 20s I've rolled, but I remember when a friend rolled a 33 on an exploding d4. That was savage worlds, but my point being that the less likely the result, the more amazing amd memorable it is when it happens.
Additionally, the designers saw fit to put this variant in the Unearthed Arcana book. And it didn't require changing everything. They reduced cr for groups larger than four, and they changed the luck domain abilities. Other than those, the only changes were directly dealing with dice, such as the new crit ranges, and turning take-20 into take-16 and take-18.
They designed the game and they didn't feel like it caused those sorts of issues.
Further, I have played with 3d6 often at the table and it works just fine.
If it was a simple pass/fail check, where the numbers didn't actually mean anything else, then sure I'd agree with you, but d20 is not a pure pass/fail system (even if used that way sometimes, though combat does get rather close admittedly). Interestingly, many opposed checks in the system were averaged out to reduce rolling, which is basically taking a bell curve and making it taller and thinner till it all fits on one number. (check the "player roll all the dice" varient. Basically any stat that is 10+ something is an opposed roll where one side got averaged out to improve resolution speed.*)
If Ashiel doesn't want it that is fine, but I've done too much with it to ever think that it would be unpredictable, difficult, or require extensive changes.
=====================
* On the note of players rolling all the dice, it might be interesting to fiddle with changing which numbers are averaged out. For example making spell dc a roll the caster makes to engage the spellcasters more and making it feel like they cast particularly well or poorly on some occasions.
You know I keep trying to make my Will saves vs inflate ego but if you guys keep this up I'm going to roll a 1 eventually. (^//^)Apologies if this is really, really blunt, but you don't really have a lot of competition.
It is refreshing talking to a designer who understands high school probability and the basic realities of d20 RPG play. I die a little every time I see crap like a major freelancer/3pp dev and a design team member comment that weapon training is worth far more than a simple +1 to attack and damage because it applies to multiple weapons. It feels like I am watching someone who believes "heavy things fall faster" design a high altitude surveillance plane.
Hey, I'm weird and have rather unique perspectives , but you don't think I'm dumb enough to believe a simple +1 to atk/dmg is worse than weapon training, do you?
You know I keep trying to make my Will saves vs inflate ego but if you guys keep this up I'm going to roll a 1 eventually. (^//^)
I'm trying to give a bonus on those saves, but maybe that's because I failed mine.
*joking I promise*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, it's literally that. It is not better, it is a +1 to attack and damage. It going to multiple weapons is kind of a joke because as a fighter you are pigeonholed into using one weapon to keep up with the other classes.
It doesn't matter if I have Weapon Training: Axes and can use all axes if I have Weapon Focus and Specialization in Battleaxe. Weapon Training may as well just say battleaxes too.
This lack of ability to spread out and thus making almost all following Weapon Trainings useless is why Advanced Weapon Trainings can be a thing. Because they were dead space before so they gave them something useful to replace them with. I personally would consider taking one weapon training into a ranged option, or a melee one if I started on range, but otherwise the rest are dead space.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, I'm weird and have rather unique perspectives , but you don't think I'm dumb enough to believe a simple +1 to atk/dmg is worse than weapon training, do you?You know I keep trying to make my Will saves vs inflate ego but if you guys keep this up I'm going to roll a 1 eventually. (^//^)Apologies if this is really, really blunt, but you don't really have a lot of competition.
It is refreshing talking to a designer who understands high school probability and the basic realities of d20 RPG play. I die a little every time I see crap like a major freelancer/3pp dev and a design team member comment that weapon training is worth far more than a simple +1 to attack and damage because it applies to multiple weapons. It feels like I am watching someone who believes "heavy things fall faster" design a high altitude surveillance plane.
I might have not stated what I meant very clearly to someone who wasn't aware of the context. Let me expand on it a little.
I die a little every time I see crap like a major freelancer/3pp dev and a design team member commenting that weapon training +1 is worth far more than a simple +1 to attack and damage for a single weapon because it doesn't just apply to one weapon but carries over to a group of other weapons.
I am referring to something which actually happened, in case it isn't obvious.
Klara
Two things, one funny.
First, dropping two objects of same air resistance but different mass are known to fall at the same rate (unless affected by forced magnetic fields which slows descent [only single source, supposedly was the last director of nasa]).
Second, (the funny fiction, or is it reality?)
WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD
(thanks to dsummerstay for reminding me to post this one)
MORPHEUS: For the longest time, I wouldn't believe it. But then I saw the fields with my own eyes, watched them liquefy the dead so they could be fed intravenously to the living -
NEO (politely): Excuse me, please.
MORPHEUS: Yes, Neo?
NEO: I've kept quiet for as long as I could, but I feel a certain need to speak up at this point. The human body is the most inefficient source of energy you could possibly imagine. The efficiency of a power plant at converting thermal energy into electricity decreases as you run the turbines at lower temperatures. If you had any sort of food humans could eat, it would be more efficient to burn it in a furnace than feed it to humans. And now you're telling me that their food is the bodies of the dead, fed to the living? Haven't you ever heard of the laws of thermodynamics?
MORPHEUS: Where did you hear about the laws of thermodynamics, Neo?
NEO: Anyone who's made it past one science class in high school ought to know about the laws of thermodynamics!
MORPHEUS: Where did you go to high school, Neo?
(Pause.)
NEO: ...in the Matrix.
MORPHEUS: The machines tell elegant lies.
(Pause.)
NEO (in a small voice): Could I please have a real physics textbook?
MORPHEUS: There is no such thing, Neo. The universe doesn't run on math.
Icehawk, Snowblind
For once, I got it the first time and I was agreeing with you on it, though I guess my wording was poor (like usual).
It was really tangential to my jokingly hopeful comment about not being one of those "stupid" developers.
Icehawk, Snowblind
For once, I got it the first time and I was agreeing with you on it, though I guess my wording was poor (like usual).
It was really tangential to my jokingly hopeful comment about not being one of those "stupid" developers.
Yeah, Poe's Law is a b#+%& online. Happens to all of us at some point.
It didn't help that, on rereading my post, I realized that I wasn't actually that clear. You could sort of guess what I meant, but I would understand if someone got confused.
EDIT: Yes, I am trying to say that +1 to attack and damage with all weapons in a fairly similar group is only very slightly better than +1 to attack and damage with the single weapon that the PC is actually planning on using, especially on a class which incentivizes focusing on a single weapon with feats*. The fact that a veteran Design Team members doesn't seem to understand that is horrifying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what you saying is their theory is what weapon training applies to a broad group and you can use it in a variety of circumstances but in practice your probably only gonna use it with one weapon from that group (why carry a greatsword hand and a half sword etc.) so in reality it only is a +1/+1
is that what you meant? if not your right very confusing.
I have a vastly different set of preferences for play than ashiel, and apparently most other players, but I'd like to think I at least design my stuff with some intelligence, even if the parameters of my designs are different from the norm.
BTW ashiel,
I'll give some feedback based on what I think you're trying to achieve* when I've gone through it all.
But for the moment I'll ask,
why do you bother with the martial/mage/mixed (see all Ms, much better to remember :p ) paths? The quick glance makes it seem like those are solely for bab/hd/etc. Why not build those from stats instead?
For example, HP could just be lvl times half your con score with a few feats to upgrade to 3/4 and full con score (barbarians get another 1/4 increase), not random but is still really close to the same numbers as taking full hp each level.
HD would just be your level, with a modifier for certain monsters.
Also, for increases less than 1, i.e. +0.5 proficiency, you might consider gaining what I call "pips," and then 12 pips equals a +1. Then it would be so much more intuitive and less mathy to know your bonuses. (cause gaining 6 pips each lvl is much easier to figure out than +.5)
Note, 12 equaling 1 was chosen specifically so pips would always have the same value for any stat they came from, and could therefore improve by thirds, halves, or quarters, thus be usable for improvements to good and poor saves, any bab progression, etc.
edit
*By this I mean I won't be considering my personal preferences in general. I.E. It won't be knocking down the lack of bell curve.
edit also,
ninjad again.
...That definitely sounds interesting I assume if i keep an eye on this thread when something hard comes out ill be made aware yes?
I've personally always thought about trying my hand at game design but it always seemed daunting and really never enough time on my hands.The idea of having it online like the srd is good makes it an evolving living thing almost.
If you are interested in d20legends, you can skim my favourites. At some point I got tired of searching for specific posts I wanted to show my friends, so I went through this thread and favourited every post I could see myself wanting to look up later on, which includes everything related to d20legends.
>TheAlicornSage said:RPGs are dynamic, they are about being part of a story, not about proving skill at all. The point of an rpg is the story.
That's...just false. I could name 10 "points" of RPGs (reasons people play them) without stopping to draw breath that don't relate to experiencing the story in the slightest. If you like RPGs because you like stories, it doesn't mean that everyone else does. But mechanical systems should generally aim in their design to support the playstyles of all their players, not just some of them.
--
>I also don't see any problem with the subjective value of a +2
Problem is that Pathfinder assumes that +2 provides you with the same power boost all across the board, while if you were to switch to 3d6 it wouldn't be. That would mean that relative power of all spells, abilities, feats and so on that provide a set numerical bonus would shift completely unpredictably. Do you know how many abilities, spells and feats that is? That's right, majority of them. So after this shift to a new dice set you would have to go over the whole system, check wherever things just broke unpredictably, shift most of the things around, probably scrap half of the stuff, certainly scrap the bestiary... Then you would have to test the system for months to see if you
>RPGs are the only kind of game that can be all about the story.
Still making sweeping statements that only take one counterexample to disprove, eh? Well, here you go:a game that is all about the story without being about role-playing. There are others like it(Stanley's parable, for example), but it's the first one that came to mind.
>You can optimize a system for gaming or storytelling, but trying for both is rather pointless and extremely difficult.
People said that going to the Moon would be pointless and rather difficult, so maybe we shouldn't even try? Wernher von Braun and Sergey Korolev answered "B*~!% please, stand in that f&!~ing corner and watch me."
--
3d6 vs 1d20
>A flat d20 though has no "normal" performance, only a range of min and max.
Ever heard of taking 10?
>Also, a +2 is the same across the board. It shifts your average performance up by 2 points. It doesn't shift power levels unpredictably, it narrows the field.
...yes it does shift them unpredictably? I even showed how:your powerboost can differ from the original by 2.32 or 0.64 times(in case of a +/-5) depending on your current base number. So all your spells and so on that granted a bonus either just became really good or dropped into the gutter. Pre-made encounters could be shifted in power level in either direction, like a bard+a bunch of mooks (which becomes easier, since bard's inspire courage is less effective on mooks now), or bard+BBEG(which could become way harder, since bard's inspire courage is waaaay more effective on decent combatants)
>Additionally, the designers saw fit to put this variant in the Unearthed Arcana book.
Heh, that's a good one. Were they the same designers who thought that a weapon cord could be approximated by a mouse cord?
--
>First, dropping two objects of same air resistance but different mass are known to fall at the same rate (unless affected by forced magnetic fields which slows descent [only single source, supposedly was the last director of nasa]).
I, uh, what? "objects of the same air resistance"? What?
Look, it's very simple. Here is the magic math
(1) is just Neuton's second law, which can be simplified to look like (2) when you write it out in regards to an object falling due to gravity when inside an atmosphere. "m" is mass, "g" is acceleration due to gravity, "F_Air resistance" is the force of air resistance, "a" is the actual acceleration of the object.
(3) is how the force of air resistance generally looks like. It can be different in some edge cases like laminar flows, but that happens ~never, so that's the one you use 99% of the time. Weird greek p-looking letter(it's called rho) is the density of the liquid/gas you are falling through, "A" is the cross-sectional area of the falling thing, "Cd" is the drag coefficient which is basically only found experimentally (because to find it without doing an experiment involves so much math that only computers can do it), but it depends on the shape of the object(smoother and more aerodynamic-looking objects have smaller Cd) and finally v is the velocity of the object. Makes sense so far? Larger objects resist moving harder, as do less aerodynamic ones, moving an object in a denser thing is harder(try swimming with an open umbrella and tell me how it goes, but you can probably run with it with some difficulty), and moving an object faster is also harder.
If you plug that into (2) you will get (4), which straight up tells you how fast your falling thing will accelerate. So what happens when you increase mass without changing anything else? Only thing that changes is "m", which increases(who would have thought that increasing mass would increase mass?), in turn decreasing the second term in the formula and increasing the total acceleration.
TL;DR heavier objects fall faster inside an atmosphere, in general. Exactly as your intuition, honed by throwing objects inside an atmosphere for thousands of years, would have told you.
For example, HP could just be lvl times half your con score with a few feats to upgrade to 3/4 and full con score (barbarians get another 1/4 increase), not random but is still really close to the same numbers as taking full hp each level.
HD would just be your level, with a modifier for certain monsters.
actually not a terrible idea there im going to take that to a logical extreme if you don't mind lets remove BAB FORT REF WILL and Skills and magic ability and instead have them all based on your stats alone so as you level instead of gaining +1 bab her an +2 fort etc instead you would gain attribute points and a feat/ability
so if you want to improve yourself at hitting and damage you increase your str steadily your to hit being literally just your modifier to str and weapon training (or its equivalent) for divine spells wisdom for arcane int as your modifier in int goes up your casting level increases with the modifier (+5 int bonus 5 c/l at arcane) skill dc's would need to be reduced all you would add would be your stat plus class "class" ability/feats so for a rogue you would take something like + to rogue skill
The advantage here is you can go to whatever level you want really since all you get is greater access to new ability's and a certain bump to stats. also it could not be simpler to add up your bonuses
you show natural ability with attribute and training with class abilities
The down side is you would have to really know what you were doing to not fall into a trap. you could go up to level 10 realize you forgot to bump wisdom and now ever charm and mind-control kicks your head in. it also means there more of a division of labor what i mean
is the cleric will be the only one making perception checks the rogue will be the only one making reflex saves unless everyone builds fairly subtly spreading out point in a kind of 1 across the board and 1 to their main stat. you could put in mechanics to help with the like maximum at a given level attributes etc.
it kind of makes me think of fall out 4
Now my ideal is a bit less drastic what you could do is make a base say peasant stats so BAB +1/2 for ref will all low magic ability low skills 2/per hit die d6 then have an almost point buy like thing as you level where you can put +2 to a save or bump BAB or give yourself more skills or increase your HD or improve your magic ability really versatile that way.
The problem with this one is you have to once again watch how you build but still if you say neglect will at least your no worse off then a fighter or barbarian would have been cause you still have the peasant increase.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, a +2 is the same across the board. It shifts your average performance up by 2 points. It doesn't shift power levels unpredictably, it narrows the field. Instead of having a wide range of very likely results, you have a narrow range of very likely results, but you also gain a range of not likely results, which are more valuable than the likely results. Rolling an 18 on 3d6 is far more epic and memorable than rolling a 20 on a d20. I don't even remember half the 20s I've rolled, but I remember when a friend rolled a 33 on an exploding d4. That was savage worlds, but my point being that the less likely the result, the more amazing amd memorable it is when it happens.
My group is less interested in memorable dice rolls (though they do happen). We were up the other night talking about a campaign for about five hours, not once did the subject of dice rolls come up.
Likewise, I have no interest in WoW-like combat mechanics where enemies a few steps above you are just impossible to attack because 90% of your attacks miss them, and vice-versa. That mechanic works fine for discouraging people from playing in zones the devs don't want them to, but it's not something I'm interested in doing in my tabletop game.
Further still, I've already accounted for things like skills and the incredible effects you can achieve with them with an above-average roll, since unlocking advanced features of a skill prohibits fantastic abilities from the non-fantastic.
Additionally, the designers saw fit to put this variant in the Unearthed Arcana book. And it didn't require changing everything. They reduced cr for groups larger than four, and they changed the luck domain abilities. Other than those, the only changes were directly dealing with dice, such as the new crit ranges, and turning take-20 into take-16 and take-18.
They designed the game and they didn't feel like it caused those sorts of issues.
Unearthed Arcana is widely known as a book of dart-board rules, various things to shake up your games, and the vast majority of them are not balanced well at all with the core assumptions of the system. The armor as DR rules for example cause you to be near invincible at low levels, but the loss of evade-% and lack of scaling of DR means you get absolutely destroyed at mid and high levels, putting martials in a worse place than they were.
Similarly, the spell point and spell recharge systems in Unearthed Arcana are horribly broken. Even moreso than normal 3.5 magic was.
In a similar vein, the developers saw fit to send many things to print. Things like the Rogue, Fighter, and Monk. They saw fit to put spells like 3.5 black tentacles in the same book as greater weapon focus. Because the devs did it is not really a good reason for me to give it any credit. That should be especially clear since the whole reason this was conceived was due to a lack of satisfaction with what I was using.
Further, I have played with 3d6 often at the table and it works just fine.
Some people say Fighters work just fine at their table. Some people says wizards aren't so tough at their table. However, I need more data than that.
And for the record, it strikes me as a bit presumptuous to assume that I've never used alternate die rolling mechanics. I own Unearthed Arcana, and I've toyed with those mechanics, and I've played games where people used alternate mechanics and then I returned to the d20 because of the results. Results that were backed both by my experiences as the laws of mathematical probabilities.
But for the moment I'll ask,
why do you bother with the martial/mage/mixed (see all Ms, much better to remember :p ) paths? The quick glance makes it seem like those are solely for bab/hd/etc. Why not build those from stats instead?For example, HP could just be lvl times half your con score with a few feats to upgrade to 3/4 and full con score (barbarians get another 1/4 increase), not random but is still really close to the same numbers as taking full hp each level.
HD would just be your level, with a modifier for certain monsters.
Paths determine general speciality irreverent of your base statistics. A persons skill in battle shouldn't be determined by their ability scores, merely modified by them.
There is no HD in d20-L. Likewise, this method is strait forward. You complain a bit lower (I'm getting to that) about fractions of 0.5, but at the same time you suggest that Hp should be a direct derivative of 1/2 Con score with a feat to increase to 3/4 Con score, multiplied by the character's level? What? O.o
I'm building this system to be both balanced and simple. I want it to be easy to teach people, easy to generate NPCs, easy to generate PCs, etc. It also forces players to give when they take. You should not, will not, can not, end up with disproportionate statistics relative to everyone else (whereas in things like Pathfinder, multiclassing and prestige classing can result in really swingy stuff or "have cake and eat it" stuff like Eldritch Knights who can cast 9th level spells while having the BAB benefits of being a martial).
Also, for increases less than 1, i.e. +0.5 proficiency, you might consider gaining what I call "pips," and then 12 pips equals a +1. Then it would be so much more intuitive and less mathy to know your bonuses. (cause gaining 6 pips each lvl is much easier to figure out than +.5)
Legit question: do you find counting money, such as stacking quarters into 50 cents and 50 cents into dollars, uncomfortable or unintuitive?
It's been my experience that most people I know find .5 and .75 to be very easy, and don't deal very well with multiples of 3-4 or 6-9 as comfortably. I'm just trying to get a good idea as to where you're coming from.
Note, 12 equaling 1 was chosen specifically so pips would always have the same value for any stat they came from, and could therefore improve by thirds, halves, or quarters, thus be usable for improvements to good and poor saves, any bab progression, etc.
Not happening. It increases the complexity for no real gain which is antithetical to my goals and design principles. I'm not building a point based RPG, I'm building an extremely flexible level-based RPG where making certain sacrifices come with certain benefits. It's both harder to manipulate the system to gain an unfair advantage but most importantly it's harder to accidentally make an unplayable character.
Since the subject of saving throws has been brought up, D20-L uses static saves (like AC) and the attacker rolls the die.
Saves are 11 + 1/2 level + associated ability. All saves, therefor, advance at the same rate as offensive abilities advance.
Ability scores advance more evenly across the board as well, so it's very hard to have a defense that is absolutely horrible. In PF, by 20th level you're already 50% less likely to make a save with a poor save than your strong save, and that's before differences in ability scores are brought in.
What this means is that characters will have inherent strengths and weaknesses and defenses they excel at if they have ability scores that match. High Strength characters naturally have better Fortitude defenses; high Dexterity, Reflex; high Mind, Will. If you want a generalist who has no particularly great or no particularly weak saves you'll see that with those who are more balanced in their scores.
">RPGs are the only kind of game that can be all about the story.
Still making sweeping statements that only take one counterexample to disprove, eh? Well, here you go:a game that is all about the story without being about role-playing. There are others like it(Stanley's parable, for example), but it's the first one that came to mind."
Both of those are roleplaying games so far as I can tell from my rather sucky google fu.
Even Halo is rather well known as proving that good story can told in an fps game, but first, you forgot that social part, second, Halo can be called roleplaying (since it is where you are playing the role of a character), but at the same time, games like Halo or even Mass Effect tend to actually be flipping back and forth between game and story, which often happens but doesn't need to happen around the table (see my example earlier about traps being a point of rp vs being a dice roll speed bump).
In any case, all of them are games of you playing a character, hence roleplaying game (since apparently everyone else wants roleplaying games to mean a very broad selection of just about any game of playing characters.) and therefore you have not disproved anything with this.
Still, I included the social aspect for a reason, and in terms of what is or is not included in my comment, that really narrows things quite considerably.
">You can optimize a system for gaming or storytelling, but trying for both is rather pointless and extremely difficult.
People said that going to the Moon would be pointless and rather difficult, so maybe we shouldn't even try? Wernher von Braun and Sergey Korolev answered "B~@$! please, stand in that f&#&ing corner and watch me.""
It is rather pointless. It would be like trying to mix chess and flux (the card game). In theory it could be done, but it wouldn't be very good. The sillyness from fluxx would irritate the players looking for serious strategy, and the serious strategy from chess would irritate those looking for relaxed silliness.
The goals of those two are opposing and in conflict. Much better to stick with leaving chess and fluxx as two separate games filling two separate niches.
This differs from your moon example in that for the moon, there wasn't an alternative that could achieve the goal as good or better and do so more easily.