It might not be D&D, but...

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by RagingDragon at 2005-04-14 21:14:31
Converted from Phorums BB System

There are alot of good ideas in these articles, and even more in the forums. I think they could be the foundation of for an excellent RPG ruleset. It might not be D&D anymore, but why not go with the idea anyway!

I like the 2d10 mechanic. I like Ernest Mueller's idea (in another thread) of eliminating critical hits and adding amount by which you exceed difficulty to combat damage. I like abstracting weapons as Darrin Bright suggested (but wouldn't go as far a Kobold Lord suggested). I like the idea of feat trees. How about converting magic into a feat tree, and reducing the "classes" to these four:

fighter (combat)
ranger/rogue (stealth)
scholar (knowledge)
manipulator (persuasion)

The ranger/rogue could be separate classes, or a single with both urban and wilderness skills to choose from (i.e. player chose ranger archetype, rogue archetype, or something in between). A scholar with magic feats is obviously a wizard, while a fighter with magic feats is more or less a cleric. A rogue with magic feats could fill the sorceror role. A manipulator with magic feats and performance skills replaces the bard. A monk would be a fighter following a funky feat tree.

At this level of abstraction, races/species could probably be modelled as classes (just like original D&D!), bonuses during character creation (like current D&D), or even racial feat trees. Not sure which option I prefer. Does the hit point mechanic also need fixing? Perhaps a variant of the StarWars D20 mechanics?

Heartbreaker? Nope, just a fun thought experiment which might lead to some enjoyable house rules and homebrew rulesets!

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Charlie Dunwoody at 2005-04-15 04:19:05
Converted from Phorums BB System

Thanks RagingDragon. I appreciate you reading through the column and posts to come up with a coherent picture of a possible RPG. I like your idea of magic feats being combined with four base classes to create all the classes we use in D&D today.

As far as hit points go, I like the method used in Mutants and Masterminds. A change to saving throw based damage would reduce the bookkeeping and make for an interesting change.

Charlie

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by RagingDragon at 2005-04-15 23:22:28
Converted from Phorums BB System

Playing with game mechanics is harmless fun. Some people take it way to seriously...:)

I'm not familiar with Mutant and Masterminds. But "saving throw based damage" does inspire some ideas: Fail save and fall unconcious? Nice and fast for minor NPC's. Perhaps PC's and major NPC's would have a smallish pool of hit points. Fail save and lose a point, fall unconcious after running out of points. Amount by which save is failed should also be significant, say fail by 1-5 lose a hit point, fail by 6-10 collapse unconsious, fail by 11+ points and suffer a mortal wound (I suspect the ranges would need fine tuning to be usable).

Oh, and I like your Dragonsuns setting.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by RagingDragon at 2005-04-16 00:11:21
Converted from Phorums BB System

I took a look at some Mutants and Masterminds reviews. I like the damage mechanic. Non-lethal combat is perfectly suited to a comic book supers game, but for generic fantasy the damage levels would have to be more lethal. That would be easy to change (say stunned, wounded, unconcious, dying)

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Ernest Mueller at 2005-04-16 09:48:56
Converted from Phorums BB System

I've played some Mutants & Masterminds. The real problem with the damage save thing is that unless it's coupled with a substantial game-affecting fate mechanic (like Hero Points) it can be too quickly fatal on a bad roll... I like it for supers, but for potentially deadly fantasy I'd want to go with a standard dual hp/wounds system. Plus, doing away with hit points altogether also oversimplifies the cleric/healer's job - you can either make them better from their condition or you can't.

I found that the fairly gamist group I play with, while liking a variety of games (recently played D&D, GURPS, Fading Suns, Silhouette, Mutants & Masterminds) had trouble with some of the M&M conventions. Players appear to prefer being in control of what they do that of what happens to them. So damage saves, villain points, etc. really rubbed them the wrong way - they like their roll, however high the DC, to dictate success. Giving them control over the passive elements didn't excite them. So I'd be careful about making that change in D&D, which is a gamist haven if ever there was one.

Ernest

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Ernest Mueller at 2005-04-16 10:28:57
Converted from Phorums BB System

Thanks for the props!

And I also agree with the thought in these threads that social/persuasion skills should be given equal mindshare.

So just to talk through it... Your four archetypes above come close to being four of the six basic "stat classes" per d20 Modern (Strong Hero, etc). Is there a place for that paradigm in D&D, in other words, should there also be a "tough hero" and "determined hero" and we could be modifying the core d20 Modern workings to create our "new D&D"? On the one hand, I don't like the d20 Modern implementation of this... But I can see "determined hero" for psionicists and possibly monks and "tough hero" for some fighers (possibly a humanoid/monster fave).

The real trick to making a more flexible system like this and keeping it "D&D" is to build in enough synergy that it's as or more compelling to be all fighter/wizard/etc as it is to pick and choose - you don't want every single character to take a little spellcasting, "just in case", because it's cheap and easy to. Could this synergy bonus replace some of the functions of a class? In other words, instead of having per-level BAB, you could have BAB be, say, (number of martial feats) or the like.

Another interesting note about 3/3.5e is that it's made all three "soft" stats relevant to some kind of spellcasting (Int, Wis, Cha). This idea should probably be maintained. Should there be magical skill/attack bonuses to bring it in line with the other mechanics?

Ernest

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Ernest Mueller at 2005-04-16 20:46:55
Converted from Phorums BB System

Some more fleshing out of what such a system could look like.

Misc assumptions from the various threads:
1. All skill/attack/magic attempts are made with 2d10+skill level vs DC.
2. Weapon damages are more standardized. You add margin of success of rolls to all skill outcomes, including weapon damage.
3. Armor soaks damage.
4. Hit points/wound points.

All classes get two feats per level. At L1 they start with 4 feats, and 2x per-level skill points. Advancement should be targeted at being somewhat slow.

Feat trees
Hierarchical groupings of feats. You don't have to picture them as trees, but that works well in both Spycraft and Feng Shui - D&D tries to do it somewhat already in their feat listings by cascading/indentation.
The trick here is that when you level, you can only take things you meet the prereqs for. So you can't get two chained feats in a tree - you didn't qualify for both when you leveled if one's a prereq of each other. This means you can move up a max of one level of depth in a feat tree per character level.

Weapon Proficiency
Simple Weapons->Martial Weapons->>Exotic Weapon(specific)
->Weapon Focus (specific)->Weapon Specialization (specific)

Power Attack->Improved Sunder->Hellesunder
->Improved Whatnot

Armor Proficiency
Light Armor->Medium Armor->Heavy Armor

Wizardly Spellcasting
Arcane Basics->Wizard Spells 1 (equiv of L1 on spells per day chart)->Wizard Spells 2->...
(the basics is basically a soak feat, it gives some minor ability but is mostly so it takes you 2 feats to pick up spellcasting)

Sorcerous Spellcasting
Arcane Basics->Sorcerer Spells 1->...

Same for clerical, favored soul, etc. You can add most existing feats, and most existing class skills as feat trees. As with feats today you can put any restrictions on them as prereqs, so you can have a "rage" tree in which you have, e.g.
Rage
Extra Rage (prereq: rage)
Extended Rage (prereq: rage)
Greater Rage (prereq: rage, any one other rage tree feat, character level 8)

Skills - all skills are capped at your level.

Melee attack (Str), ranged attack (Dex) are skills
The spells schools and domains are reflected as skills - so
Arcane Skills (Int)
Evocation
Transmutation
...
Divine Skills (Wis)
Air
Animal
...
All these skills are used for their relevant "attack". If you cast Fireball, you are making an Evocation skill check.

Now, to get rid of saves, add defensive skills. Including melee defense. In this way you end up with a "resist" skill for each stat, but one you buy as opposed to going up automatically like saves and Defense bonuses.
Block (Str) - defense roll for melee combat
Dodge (Dex) - defense roll for ranged combat
Tough (Con) - defense roll for, you know, Fort savey things
Think (Int) - defense roll for many arcane spells
Will (Wis) - defense roll for mind-affecting
Cool (Cha) - defense roll for social skills

You don't have to roll these, though, they're added to relevant DCs.
So a guy rolls his melee attack vs 10+Block for a sword hit. Or a wizard rolls his Transmutation vs 10+Think for a Polymorph attempt. Or a bard rolls Persuade vs 10+Cool for a seduction attempt. Margin of success adds to damage or effect.

So now... Are there classes at all? Hit points and skill points are the only remaining variables since BAB, Defense, and saves have been transformed into skills. You could just have a defined per-level tradeoff table:
hp sp
d12 2
d10 4
d8 6
d6 8
d4 10
(if you felt frisky you could do away with HD altogether and say you have points per level that can be skill points or hit points, either one - say 10 points. So 8 hp and 2 sp, or vice versa...)

Let's see - a prototypical L1 fighter might have simple weapons, martial weapons, light armor, medium armor as feats. d10 HD, +1 melee attack, +1 ranged attack, +1 Block, +1 Tough, four other skills at +1. If human, a bonus feat.
A prototypical wizard would have simple weapons, arcane basics, arcane L1, and a magic-type feat. d4 HD, let's say +1 in each save and +1 in all eight schools, and six other skills at +1. If human,a bonus feat.

Ernest

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by RagingDragon at 2005-04-16 22:15:45
Converted from Phorums BB System

What if PC's and major NPC's had a limited number of wound points, say equal to their CON attribute. Mooks and minor NPC's would not have any wound points. Fail a damage save and you lose a wound point, fail badly and lose several wound points. At -1 wound points your unconcious/incapacitated and bleeding to death, at minus CON wound points you're dead.

Now since margin of success is added to damage, and we also have damage saves do we really need random weapon damage rolls? Might as well give weapons a fixed damage bonus (dagger +2, sword +4, etc.)

RagingDragon

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by RagingDragon at 2005-04-16 22:32:38
Converted from Phorums BB System

I hate the D20 Modern "classes". Classes should represent archtypes, or they shouldn't exist at all.

So I much prefer "function based" classes to "attribute based" classes, and in my mind fighter does not equate to strong hero - with only four classes, the archer, armoured knight and nimble swashbuckler are all fighters. Likewise Indiana Jones may be a scholar, but probably isn't a D20 modern "smart hero".

I don't have a problem with every character picking up a few magic feats, but the feats could have pre-requisites to discourage that, or even class restrictions.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by RagingDragon at 2005-04-16 22:48:48
Converted from Phorums BB System

Hmmm....not much D&D remaining.

If we're ditching classes for a skill-based system with feats and levels, I don't like the D&D attributes, so lets change them too:

Dexterity
Physique (combines STR and CON)
Intelligence
Perception
Willpower
Charisma

I'd like all "to-hit" rolls based on dexterity, though strength would still add to melee damage (realistically, an overmuscled but uncoordinated fighter should have difficulty hitting...). I also liked the interplay the between the social stats (cool and humanity) in Cyberpunk 2020.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by RagingDragon at 2005-04-16 22:54:12
Converted from Phorums BB System

Here are some ideas for handling action/karma points:

1. Roll 3D10, chose two highest.
2. Roll 2D10, lowest becomes a 10.
3. Automatic critical success.

I'm partial to #3. Simple, and no chance of a bad roll rendering an action point ineffective.

RagingDragon

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by RagingDragon at 2005-04-16 22:56:44
Converted from Phorums BB System

This feat could give access to cantrips (level 0 spells).

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Ernest Mueller at 2005-04-17 09:06:34
Converted from Phorums BB System

RagingDragon wrote:
-------------------------------
Hmmm....not much D&D remaining.


Yeah... Maybe we could salvage classes by doing this.
Same number's used for "attacks" and "defense". Also, each level, you get one feat for free, but one feat from a specific class list.

So "Warrior" looks like:
d10 hp, 4 sp/level

Att/Def Bonuses
Str Dex Con Int Wis Cha
+1 +0 +1 +0 +0 +0
+2 +1 +2 +0 +1 +0
+3 +1 +3 +1 +1 +0
...

Basically two of each progression type.
Class Feat List (one for free):
Class Skill List (like currently):

You'd be able to come up with lots of classes then if you want, playing with the progressions and granted feats/skills. So, say, a cavalier might merit a separate class, with better Cha progression, access to mounted feats, Ride and some other add'l skills on the skill list.

You'd retain classes for those that love them, but can have a 2-page section explaining how they're put together and how to make your own, since there's no "black magic" to it. Those that want could go classless simply.

You could have prestige classes in this setup - basically if you meet prereqs, allow slightly better progressions or more expanded lists, or maybe a tradeoff between those factors.

Feat progressions could definitely have class prereqs in this setup - they'd become like feats - class, cross-class, restricted.

Ernest