PDA

View Full Version : The good thing about d20 is...


RPGnet Columns
03-29-2005, 08:20 PM
Post originally by nihtgenga at 2005-03-29 19:20:00
Converted from Phorums BB System

you can write your own version of D&D (within limits of course). Which is what I am currently doing, not making the ultimate D&D, but the D&D I would be happy to play.


But if you are looking for what I want to see in D&D:

Something more simple but with more flexible flavour. Basic, simple cinematic rules as basic combat, with the advanced tactical movement based combat as the add on version. This choice would suit most player types and you know the basic rules will work (as opposed to stripping stuff out of tactical combat and hoping nothing breaks).

More generic basic classes (as in basic sailor or nomad rider class) with things like paladin, ranger, barbarian, druids as prestige classes (also sailor could grow into pirate or the like). That way world design could follow consistant rules without exceptions like exlusive 'basic' classes.

Less reliance on magic items to make fighters powerful. If your HD keep going up to reflect your training to avoid damage, then the ability to do damage should also increase under the same assumptions. Likewise with Armour Class (probably adding the CoC Defense Class rules would make this simple).

More rationalised spell lists. Eg. Cone of 'energy' instead of just cone of frost (or whatever). Lots of flexibility if you make a basic damage spell like 'energy' ball and have energy side effects (like the different dragon's breaths) as the plug in options.
Has the added advantage of stopping spell lists from wasting so many damn pages in the book.

Make cleric domains less tokenistic, probably by making domain spells castable spontaneously and grouping ALL divine spells into domains the same way as arcane spells all have a school. Clerics would then have prohibited domains as well so you don't have fire clerics casting darkness spells.

If you make your magic items more based on the spell list you save even more space (eg. Boots of Cat's Grace that can be always on or limited number of charges but useable by anyone who knows the key word. Non magic uses may have to hire a wizard learn it).
Easier to understand spell creation rules so you can figure out why some spells in the same level have minor component costs and others cost a few thousand gp. Plug in component costs so you can personalise spells by adjusting the components so that different specialist wizards cast the same spell using different components.
I wouldn't mind changing casting times on a few other spells, more for drama sake than weakening wizards. Animate Dead should be a dramatic ritual, not a click of the fingers as it currently is now.

More flexible alignment system (so that leaving it out doesn't immediately make half your detect spells pointless). At the least stop Detect Evil from working automatically, if anything to throw the Paladin's off balance.

In summary? Flavour, flavour, flavour.

RPGnet Columns
03-29-2005, 11:18 PM
Post originally by Narf at 2005-03-29 22:18:03
Converted from Phorums BB System

What would you add to the alignment system, and where would you stop?

RPGnet Columns
03-30-2005, 04:51 AM
Post originally by Darkal at 2005-03-30 03:51:13
Converted from Phorums BB System

Why not do something semi- sensible, like add personality traits instead of Alingment. Selfish or Vengeful instead of Evil, Compasion or Forgiving or Team-Player instead of Good, etc. That way everyone will stop playing fricking Chaotic Neutral. They can make a savings-throw to overcome their Traits, etc....

Alingment Items can have matching traits instead of matching Alingment.

RPGnet Columns
03-30-2005, 07:13 AM
Post originally by Charlie Dunwoody at 2005-03-30 06:13:53
Converted from Phorums BB System

Nihtgenga,

I like your ideas. If I really ran D&D Inc. I'd want you helping out.

I didn't get into spells a lot in the column, but I agree with your ideas. The whole thing needs to be taken apart and rebuilt with some internal logic involved, while still allowing the really interesting spells to be built.

I agree with your other ideas as well. Dramatic combat and lots of flavor.

Charlie

RPGnet Columns
03-30-2005, 07:15 AM
Post originally by Charlie Dunwoody at 2005-03-30 06:15:02
Converted from Phorums BB System

I agree that the alignment needs a huge overhaul. It hasn't changed much since AD&D 1st Edition and really needs an update. Traits are an interesting idea, as long as the number of traits is kept small and workable.

Charlie

RPGnet Columns
03-30-2005, 10:48 AM
Post originally by DensityDuck at 2005-03-30 09:48:43
Converted from Phorums BB System

>In summary? Flavour, flavour, flavour.

Well...you say this, but in your post you're going on about generic character classes, generic spells, generic skills, generic magic items that only replicate generic spells. How is <i>that</i> flavorful?

Plus which, "damage ball" with a lengthy list of options won't save you many pages over "damage ball: acid, damage ball: fire, damage ball: lightning", because you have to define each of those options. If you make them all the same as the others except for "fire balls hurt ice creatures, lightning balls hurt water creatures", then you just have a CRPG written down on paper, which...yuck.

RPGnet Columns
03-30-2005, 11:52 AM
Post originally by Narf at 2005-03-30 10:52:52
Converted from Phorums BB System

But what if I want a trait that's not on the list? Same problem. The thing I like about the alignment system is that it's general enough so that you can shove pretty much any character into it, without stretching it out of porportion.

RPGnet Columns
03-30-2005, 03:12 PM
Post originally by nihtgenga at 2005-03-30 14:12:20
Converted from Phorums BB System


Haven't gone into it yet, but the simplest starting point is like the Conan Reputation system. If you haven't read it, people gain reputation based on certain acts and then it acts a little like Charisma, you get bonuses to Intimidate etc based on the size of the score. You can also define the type of Reputation, such as Honest, villain etc.

To translate, evil acts give you an evil score. People with evil scores committing good acts lose evil points. If it goes to zero you start a new score with good points etc. The lower to score, the harder you are to detect. Alternatively you could use the opposed Pendragon traits pairing Good/Evil etc. Neutral would be both scores in the 8-12 range or something.

What I would definitely do however is tie alignment to a magical/spiritual significance. Thus Blackbeard the pirate could be very evil but not have a high evil score as there is no magical significance. An evil cleric, on the other hand, would be tied to an evil god and therefore would have a high score. But he would also have access to hide alignment type abilities. Outsiders would have a high alignment as well.

The trick is to find a balance between decent intrigue without Detect ruining the plot and the ability to support 'mythological' significant good vs evil.

RPGnet Columns
03-30-2005, 03:23 PM
Post originally by nihtgenga at 2005-03-30 14:23:53
Converted from Phorums BB System

The problem with short posts is loss of detail.

What you see as flavour, I see as someone else’s idea of flavour. All fireball spells use the same components. I can cast Fireball but not Frostball, Cone of Frost instead of Cone of Fire, and just what the hell was Bigby’s puberty like I wonder.

A cleric of a healing god with a Lawful domain can have exactly the same spell list as a lawful neutral war god, even down to the domain spells. That’s flavour?

I want generic so I have a simple kit to add in the items I want. Arcana Unearth (or whatever, the non Monte one) barbarian totems, the wizard specialisation variations or the monk styles are things that I am roughly referring to.

My problem is D&D as it stands produces a certain kind of world only and is annoyingly difficult to modify without the hassle of worries about character balance.