| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am putting together a beta draft of new system based on the ogl but heavily modified.
One of the aspects I change is that raw numerical power is separate from versatility, and advancement is altered so you can gain lots of levels while remaining in the desired power tier which spans only 4 to 5 levels in 3.5/pf1. It also allows starting at higher power tiers while also starting with novice skills and experience, so you might have a game with superhero/demigod levels of power (like levels 15-20 in 3.x/pf1) but as novice characters who have not yet learned how to use that power very well. Basically, characters can level and gain skills and feats, but power is gained separately which dictates things like caster level, base save bonuses, etc.
I also made attacks and spellcasting skill based actions.
One competing pair of mechanics I came up with however, is classes. Of which I'm curious which of the following ideas is more appealing, and other thoughts on them good or bad.
A) Classes are feat trees. Personally, I hate being forced into classes, though they can be useful for quickly building npcs. Thus this idea for including the thematic elements and abilities of classes in a more free-form fashion. You get feat trees and when you get feats you can select from the feats trees. You might have one tree that has the evasion and uncanny dodge type abilities, one that does the rage type stuff, one for traps, one for stealth, etc. An additional advantage here is that you can mix and match these elements, so you might have a sneaky caster with wilderness abilities that doesn't do traps and stuff but rather acts as a scout.
B) Power levels. The idea herem is that each increase in power comes with taking a level in a class, but between those points is taking unclassed levels where skills and feats are gained. This still has classes, mostly as they are, but still leaves a lot of growth between gaining class levels.
*Note, I've seen arguments against feat trees. Almost every one boils down to the feat trees having feat taxes. I hate the idea of feat taxes. To me, a good feat tree, is when a feat gives you something and following feats build on that something.
Good to hear, GM DarkLightHitomi. ;)
One competing pair of mechanics I came up with however, is classes. Of which I'm curious which of the following ideas is more appealing, and other thoughts on them good or bad.
A) Classes are feat trees. Personally, I hate being forced into classes, though they can be useful for quickly building npcs. Thus this idea for including the thematic elements and abilities of classes in a more free-form fashion. You get feat trees and when you get feats you can select from the feats trees. You might have one tree that has the evasion and uncanny dodge type abilities, one that does the rage type stuff, one for traps, one for stealth, etc. An additional advantage here is that you can mix and match these elements, so you might have a sneaky caster with wilderness abilities that doesn't do traps and stuff but rather acts as a scout.
B) Power levels. The idea herem is that each increase in power comes with taking a level in a class, but between those points is taking unclassed levels where skills and feats are gained. This still has classes, mostly as they are, but still leaves a lot of growth between gaining class levels.
Was wondering if there wasn't a way to combine both of the mechanics together?
For just Mechanic A though, it sounds similar enough to how stuff gets presented in Mutants & Masterminds, 2nd and 3rd editions in that they used Templates to give a guide on how to build a character [In earlier iterations of Champions/Hero System, I think they used just sample characters instead of using templates even].
PS. Would it be possible, if someone was to make, let's say, a full PF1e or PF2e character, to have that very self-same character be "translated" into your version of the rules? That might go a long way towards getting possible prospective players on board [or not, the general online player base can be fickle sometimes]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Was wondering if there wasn't a way to combine both of the mechanics together?
I think it wouldn't work because power levels wouldn't gain you anything that couldn't be gained on normal levels, and that'd make the power levels feel redundant and pointless.
PS. Would it be possible, if someone was to make, let's say, a full PF1e or PF2e character, to have that very self-same character be "translated" into your version of the rules?
That depends on what the player expects. A more mechanically minded player might find it unsatisfactory, though still possible.
However, a player with a strong core concept that merely finds rules to represent their concept would find it fairly easy to translate and get something close.
Though I admit to having stayed away from pf2 after the playtest since it went a wholly different direction from what I want in a system, so there might be abilities I'm unaware of that could be difficult. I'll need player feedback if that happens.
I can say 5e and pf2 don't run the full power scale that 3.x/pf1 do, and that aspect can be translated over quite easily but might feel awkward since characters would essentially start at power 2 or 3 for what pf2 and 5e consider level 1 and then a level 20 will end up with power 6-10.