I suppose how many ability picks are mandatory to be good at a specialty depends on how badly off you want multi-specialists (fighter-wizards) to be disadvantaged compared to single area specialists. 15 would work (you can't quite make someone who's an uber-wizard and an uber-warrior) but it does look like you you have to design alot of abilities to get 15 that are mandatory. You could also reduce ability picks to every 2nd level to make numbers more manageable.

Spellcasting looks like a really tricky area, unsurprisingly. You could rewrite Spellpower tree as something like
Spellpower: you can cast spells. You can choose this ability multiple times, with the Spellpower rating of your spells equalling the number of times you select this feat. Choose a casting stat and power source when you first learn Spellpower.

In normal D&D, you need the damage for the spell to remain somehow related to the HPs of the monster for the spell to be worth casting, so basing spell damage off character level rather than spell power might be better, and have spell power do something else. Otherwise for casters the tree system gives the same results as standard 3.5 multiclassing; a warrior with lots of warrior picks takes a 'wizard' pick and gets useless wizard powers, while a wizard has to invest all their picks in magic or falls behind.

The lazy solution might be to have caster level = character level, but have the spell power picks giving what spell level a character can cast (and use the regular spell list). Or maybe design some set of 'spell seeds' with guidelines to let wizards upgrade them to higher levels would save you having to rebuild a spell list from scratch.

I don't need the Damage of the spells to scale wildly, though they work fine in 3E, because I hope to reduce monster HP back to, say, AD&D levels.

Of course, damage dealing spells aren't really the real problem. I can balance those against the damage a pure fighter can do (and vice versa) to ensure that no one is 'gimped' at high levels.

The real problems with spells come from the wildly unrestrained powers that the spell list provides in other areas.  Spells, as written, largely negate the need for anyone else in the party. Need a door opened? Knock, or just dimension door to the other side..

More spells per day would only aggrivate this, less just gimp spell caster in other ways (and the party all to frequently. The 15 minute adventuring day comes mostly from spell caster players going nuclear in every fight...)

Quote from: Spike;434269ivate this, less just gimp spell caster in other ways (and the party all to frequently. The 15 minute adventuring day comes mostly from spell caster players going nuclear in every fight...)

Of course worrying about them being able to go nuclear, and trimming them down is where 4E seams to have gone, and I preferred being able to choose powers/abilities/functions, and choose to go nuclear or not, rather than to be that repetitive and fundamentally boring when playing such a character.


I think D&D (Cyclopedia) and its weapon mastery abilities helped bump fighters up a bit, rather than gimp casters down, and they're pretty gimped at the start of play anyway.

Quote from: Silverlion;434271Of course worrying about them being able to go nuclear, and trimming them down is where 4E seams to have gone, and I preferred being able to choose powers/abilities/functions, and choose to go nuclear or not, rather than to be that repetitive and fundamentally boring when playing such a character.


I think D&D (Cyclopedia) and its weapon mastery abilities helped bump fighters up a bit, rather than gimp casters down, and they're pretty gimped at the start of play anyway.

True, which is why my instinct is to give them the ability to do their thing more often.  

However, as much as I hate the term 'niche protection', the wizard specifically defines WHY its necessary in many ways.

Quote from: Spike;434269The real problems with spells come from the wildly unrestrained powers that the spell list provides in other areas.  Spells, as written, largely negate the need for anyone else in the party. Need a door opened? Knock, or just dimension door to the other side..

The wizard can do this once or twice perhaps unaided, while the rogue can do it ad infinitum. A scroll (or, worse, a wand) is what really breaks the game in this regard. Apart from these, there's balance problem is that the spell is automatic whereas the rogues ability fails occasionally but fundamentally knock is a legacy spell from 1e/2e which was balanced there, but went from being the 3rd level wizards only spell to being effectively 50/adventure or more. With an appreciate resource cost, its not really a bad idea to let a wizard in a small party say act as 'backup' rogue. Of course, "I'm a skeleton key" isn't (to me at least, YMMV) a terribly exciting concept: the rogue should need more than that taken away from them before they become redundant...

Quote from: Silverlion;434271Of course worrying about them being able to go nuclear, and trimming them down is where 4E seams to have gone, and I preferred being able to choose powers/abilities/functions, and choose to go nuclear or not, rather than to be that repetitive and fundamentally boring when playing such a character.

To an extent letting the noncasters go nuclear as well in 4E was a good idea... ah the implementation. IMHO a fighters' primary (expendable) resource is hit points; give the fighter an ability to beat the crap out of something at a greater risk to themselves (like the feats currently in Complete Warrior that give -x AC, +x damage, or -4 AC to get AoOs on foes attacking them) and they could vary their attrition curve to go supernova on shorter adventures too..At least, I think that could work in a system that doesn't have unlimited healing like 3.5...

Alright: It seems as if the initial conversation has died down a bit, with some good bits and some interesting ideas coming out of it.  I shall now start on a more detailed post (series of posts? Pending conversations, obviously) getting into more specific details.

Obviously first up is Attributes.

As I said, I plan to keep the default six attributes and their current bonus scheme, simply because it does work fundamentally.   As a default I believe I prefer a 3d6, or, because my players are whiny attribute whores, a 4d6 drop the lowest default dice scheme. Of course individual groups that chose to use the Pika D20 system may, of course, determine attributes by any way they chose (I think that a lottery system would be brutal fun... Sorry, Silverlion, but you drew the low ticket, this game you shall have to play the Gimp... better luck next campaign!)  At the end of the day the HOW they are assigned is not particularly important.

However, as stated there are some changes in the works.

Not least of which is a derth of 'attribute boosters' in the game, starting with the default 'raise by x levels' current to 3E games. Not that I minded it, but it did render the current scale obsolete.

That isn't to say there won't be options, but that those options will be rare and difficult to gain, and the effects of raising your attributes to superhuman levels will be, obviously, that you are superhuman.

Bonuses from attributes will be applied in various ways, but not nearly as universally as current...this is part of a general scheme of reducing bonus stacking in general.

Attribute Checks:  I am in favor of putting into the game a default system of checking against an attribute to accomplish tasks. Call it a stunt system, when its open ended... but the concept is simple: To bash open a door (quickly... slow bashing is inevitable for almost anyone...depending on certain values of inevitability... I'm sure a two year old with a rock could totally smash open a bank vault... given a few thousand years to whack at it...) roll a strength check.

As stated my default assumption is that players will be rolling against their actually attribute in these cases. An ordinary human (ten strength) can bash open a door with a solid blow about half the time... give him a couple of whacks and he'll be through.  Maybe too generous, but difficulty scaling comes in a little later.  Grognar the Strong wants to hold open a portcullis that's dropping? That's a strength check (maybe with a penalty... -5 to Grognar's strength, or a +5 on the dice. Adding seems more intuitive on average, but adding to a randomly generated number seems to confuse people..)

The alternative is to have people roll against a difficulty and apply the BONUS to the roll, which is 3E default. I've got no problem with this system (people already are comfortable with it), but it does sort of negate the value of keeping the 3-18 scale.

STRENGTH:  As alluded to earlier, this no longer adds to attack rolls, but does apply to damage.   I may make this bonus/stat more crucial to fighter types by keying ability boosts to the 'strength bonus'...so a 'whack people really hard!' ability would be better for strong guys than scrawny, quick guys.  I can't think of any real reason to rehash the 'character range' of carry weights and so forth at this juncture, but STR bonuses will factor into many combat actions.

DEXTERITY: Also no longer applies to Attack roll calculations, but I think I will keep it for Armor Class bonuses (which also default lower because Armor rules changed).  Dex is added to damage calculations (and yes, combat abilites based on dex may key off the bonus as strength)

CONSTITUTION:  Aside from providing raw health (Probably Wounds), CON is a poorly implemented, purely passive attribute as it currently stands. Thus some effort must be made to make it more relevant.  Making it play more of a roll in (largely ignored) endurance rules is a minor step, but I'm thinking I will have to implement at least one 'Tanking' tree of class abilities that key directly off of CON bonus.

INTELLIGENCE/WISDOM: Primarily Casting Stats, obviously. I will probably keep some level of bonus spells, and I'm inclined to keep them as a factor in Save DC calculations.  I am also inclined to remove or reduce their impact on maximum spell levels, so that playign a 16 INT wizard is not horribly gimped at high levels. I do think that Spell Save DCs vs Save DCs are not horribly broken as written, though they can be a bit swingy... some of that has to deal with outcomes of failure.  

CHARISMA: As a casting stat it will work however INT/WIS works. I think some basis for a 'first impression' social rule would be highly useful here. Simpler but less satisfying is a fixed bonus like buying/selling discounts etc.  Thinking that 'leadership' should be more inherent than a feat... that is if the players/GM want to make use of Leadership in game, they just DO, rather than buying a feat (and maybe forcing the GM to alter his campaign without discussion/questing... or do the dick move and just nix the feat), though I am tempted to make some inherent leadership into a 'Generic' Ability Tree.


Obviously there is room for discussion, advice etc.  One of my players is seriously pushing me to look at INFINITY (a tactical wargame) for advice on attribute rolls, but he hasn't actually said it says anything different than what I've already suggested.  Sadly my main collaborator in my group has found a life (new GF, more college, etc) and dropped out of gaming a couple months ago. As the only other rules wonk that leaves me operating with only half the brainpower I really had before...  We hadn't really talked attributes when I first started this.


NB:  When I say 3-18, I don't mean attributes are well and truly capped at 18.  Dwarves will totally be able to hit 20 Con, what have you, and high level characters can still find 'Manuals of Bodily Health' or what not, if they really look for them... I just use that as the common scaling shorthand. The potential to 'roll off the chart' totally needs to be kept in mind when considering mechanics, even if the default is 'on chart'.

Also: Still need to work out how Attributes interface with skills, and I mean 'lock it down'. Rough ideas are nifty but unusable.

3.5 attribute bonus system is something that always irked me actually, just since it makes odd numbers give no additional benefit, even when the odd numbered point costs more than the point before.

The roll-under does fix that (you do get benefit for odds) but the trade-off is that you no longer have a single core mechanic - a high roll is good for some things and a low roll for others. With this system you also need to clearly define whats an 'attribute check' and whats an 'untrained skill check', or you risk players trying to scam a task as an attribute checks (since these have a very good base chance of success) instead of a skill.

Removing STR as a to-hit bonus makes sense if armour acts as DR, since you can argue in standard D&D it largely represents a character's ability to hack through armour with their mighty strength. Having rolls be asymmetric bugs me (a high DEX gives an AC bonus that the attacker can't in any way compensate for since there's no attack attribute) but I have trouble explaining why, exactly.
Most of the other stuff sounds pretty reasonable. No idea how you make CON into a non-passive stat, an interesting question. Make it an abstraction of size as well as health? Redefine it? Shoehorn some more skills into it without asking too many questions ?(though I think you were reducing or elimianting modifiers for skills anyway).

Asymmetry usually does bother people, but I think the numbers would work out in the long run. People like the idea of the scrawny quick guy dancing around a big bruiser (even if the bruiser is better trained. You see this in Season of the Witch, for example).

I'll have to check the numbers, however, when I start breaking down how combat actually would look.  I like having the tactical options in 3E, but I want to speed up the game.  It may be that pulling out the Dex bonus to AC will be a good thing.

Regarding attribute checks: In the main I think having a few easily grasped subsystems that don't line up perfectly with the main system actually can make game play more fun.  If every thing you do 'Feels' the same at the table you are less inclined to note when you are really doing something different.  The point is to make the 3-18 range relevant again and I can't think of a better way to do it, though I am open to new ideas...

The big problem with crossing over skills and attribute checks would be certain DEX checks (Swinging from a chandelier as a stunt is essentially a learnable skill (Acrobatics) and Intelligence (putting together a cunning trap could totally be a crafting skill)... with CHA for social skills coming in a third. So either I get used to people NOT ROLLING those attributes very often, or I let people swing from chandeliers without worrying about some acrobatics skill (that should totally also exist).

I'm not sure there is an elegant solution.  Maybe massage the numbers so that it works either as as skill, or as a unskilled attribute check (or even an unskilled skill check), but at X value of skill the advantage totally lies with the trained dude over the dude with an 18 Dex.  If we treat, mathematically, the 18 dex as a +4 check for determining odds, that makes working out the DC of the skill checks easier (the odds flip once you've passed +4 to your skill...), which in turn implies that raw talent is roughly the same as... being level 8?

Hrm...

Quote from: Spike;434636I'm not sure there is an elegant solution.  Maybe massage the numbers so that it works either as as skill, or as a unskilled attribute check (or even an unskilled skill check), but at X value of skill the advantage totally lies with the trained dude over the dude with an 18 Dex.  If we treat, mathematically, the 18 dex as a +4 check for determining odds, that makes working out the DC of the skill checks easier (the odds flip once you've passed +4 to your skill...), which in turn implies that raw talent is roughly the same as... being level 8?

I think problem is that 'Attribute bonus to attribute checks' and 'attribute bonus to skill checks ' are scaling at a different rate (+5%/point vs. +5%/2 points, with the modifier) and only one gets a level bonus.
Low-level characters with high attributes will always be trying to scam attribute checks, and a high-level characters will be trying to apply skills.

I've seen the problem before...but no really elegant solutions. In say 2nd ed, where the high-level fighter with a crappy Dex has to avoid the falling block trap. The GM could tell them to make a Dex check they'd probably fail, or a save they'd probably make, with the rules being pretty vague...

I suppose you can just accept that a high attribute makes someone the equivalent of an expert of a skill... maybe this leads toward having attributes just give free initial skill levels, rather than a modifier?

As far as other ways to make the whole range relevant, you could have two modifiers for each stat, with one increasing at 'odds' and the other at 'evens', or have something else that scales up with the odds (a pool of merit or flaw points relating to the attribute for instance). You can have pools based off the whole score (base skill points=INT, base luck points = CHA, base wounds = CON, etc) which means odds count for something, even if its not as much as evens. Still, pools or ability damage being there are something that at least makes it worthwhile to keep attribute scores instead of just having stats as modifiers like in Talislanta or True20.

Keeping odds relevant is why all feat prerequisites are odd-numbers in normal d20 of course (e.g. Dodge: Dex 13+) but there were never that many of these and they felt a bit tacked on. A randomly-rolled character will have half their attributes odd, which immediately puts them behind the point buy guy.

Oddly enough, if you keep attributes raising by level, you get an odd number of raises (5).

Okay, that's pointless, esp. since I'm ditching the free raises anyway.

We've actually got a three way split on things here.  Saves, skills and attribute checks.  I don't know if its just my play style, but I have happily used Saves to check out if a dude can slide under a falling block before, and I haven't had much of a problem with 'how saves work' as is (complete with attribute bonuses) because they don't really 'fall off the dice' even at high levels.  I CAN bring saves down a bit, as adjusting DCs across the board is somewhat mandatory at this point... but if attribute bonuses don't do anything, why have them?

While it would be an interesting experience to make a game without distinct attributes (and seriously: the Pika D20 could totally do it, I'm thinking...), It is ranging rather farther afield than I want to go.

Frankly, I don't mind having someone at the top of their game able to do some things that a trained expert can do, if not 'well' at least at all.  

So... a Strength Check is totally 'busting down a door with my fist'
       a Dexterity Check is totally 'Swing from a chandelier in combat'
       a Constitution Check is totally 'not a fortitude save?'
       a Intelligence Check is totally 'rig a cunning gadget?'
       a Wisdom Check is totally 'not a will save?'
       a Charisma Check is totally 'find a new friend/lover in town'

More or less.

The difference between a save and a check is obvious to me: Saves are resistances, passive, avoiding something happening TO you. Checks are 'I want to DO 'X'."  My inability to quickly think of something for Con or Wis is bad, but doesn't break the idea.

Int might be a better place to stick something like 'Know a piece of obscure lore'.... like the proper greeting for a stone giant cheiftan or some wonky shit. My examples would be guidelines for both a DC chart and for players to come up with their own shit.

Vs Skills: The guy with the attribute check is stuck at a fixed level and spur of the moment uses. If Swinging from a Chandelier was a primary reason to take 'Acrobatics', then I could totally see penalizing Dex checks to do that. The guy with the skill will not only be/get better at that action at some value of skill, but will have a wide range of things he can do with that skill without asking the GM permission.  Or I simply leave off acrobatics skills all together (thinking about it for shit like jump and run)

Potentially Wis checks could cover -having an insight into a person or thing/realizing you're about to do something stupid?
If someone else is trying to use a Charisma roll to sweet-talk you, it would seem fair to give them a Wisdom roll to resist (same odds of success and so on), though technically they would be 'resisting' something here, so perhaps it should be a 'save' of some kind...

For Con check - ummm...yes hard to think of a non-passive use. I suppose you could argue a character who is exerting themselves hard and has to make a Con roll to avoid getting fatigued is actively using Con since they chose to try to exert themselves.

Having Dexterity rolls cover stuff like Balance is good, since its something that seems more innate...

Arguably Wis checks could just replace Spot/Listen (as they're things that don't improve enormously with training), but that makes opposed rolls for Hide/Move Silently hard to do...

Acrobatics (or Athletics) as running and jumping...potentially you could have a base jumping distance/movement speed from Strength or Dexterity, then a skill roll adds a bonus depending on how well you make it (perhaps with possible falling over should you roll too badly....). Some tasks could potentially use two checks, with a skill roll adding a bonus to the stat before making the stat roll..?? e.g. a massive Athletics roll giving a bonus to Str when trying to force open the door.

I could see using STR checks (or CON Checks) for short term running and jumping checks, and having an athletics skill for more long term/planned physical activities.  

Or I could see leaving out a generic athletics skill and just having the attributes explain how fit or unfit you are.  I mean... I've got a hundred games with Athletics skills for generic running and jumping, and I'm reasonably certain I've never actually seen them USED unless they provided a passive benefit.

Acrobatics? Sure. In 3E that's Tumbling (and Balance), and people use it to do stuff all the time.

But running and jumping skills, while they are theoretically trainable (see Olympic athletes), I think that practically you wouldn't see 'adventuring' gains... make sense?  More gains will come from being More Fit then 'better trained'.

I mostly play 3.5 these days so no Athletics - but I do avoid Jump like the plague (and usually fail to use it when I do have it).... In a very rules-stickling game I might put a rank into it to avoid the "you're prone if you don't beat the DC by 5" thing. But yeah; I think you're right and Athletics or variations isn't really necessary or oft-used.
Also Jump skill in d20 is mostly just silly, since in normal 3.5 you can (if I can believe the analysis at the Alexandrian.net) start breaking Olympic records at about 5th level.

Ok.

But I'm trying to keep the discussion on track, and right now its skills... wait, no... attributes! Skills are for laterz!



I think I'll wait another day or two for people to read through my long ass shit and comment before I move on to races.  The first part will be easy (essentially stripped down SRD shit) and teh second part won't..

Sigh.

Due to limited time and extreme physical exhaustion I've let this thread lie fallow a little longer than I planned. Of course, this next 'part' is the first 'hard part', the Races.

I'll be breaking this one up into multiple posts as I have time to work on it and as I resolve details. Feel free to comment or critique as I go, without waiting for the final 'racial' post.

I will not be addressing the curious phenomenon of race vs species, however.


Races:

Humans:  I know I'm not going with a Bonus Feat, and I'm pretty sure that a bonus skill is also off the table.  that leaves me, mechanically, in a bind. I've been tempted to put in a 'floating' attribute boost (+2 to an attribute of the players choice).  Equally possible, and in the line of 3E, humans might get an extra 'Tree' of abilities (essentially a free multiclassing bonus).
Humans will qualify for all 'Half-Race' backgrounds.

Dwaves: +2 Con, -2 Dex, 20 foot move, Lowlight default and that's it.  Dwarves suffer from ability bloat with WAY too many minor abilities.  Darkvision would come from the 'Deep Dwarf' Background, maybe others. Dwaves have only a few Half-race backgrounds available (elemental earth and fire variations, etc)

Elves: +2 Dex, -2 Con, meditate instead of sleep (no mechanical bonus necessarily...) and lowlight vision.  Deep Elves and Evil Elves combined would make Drow. Elves have few half-Race options (a half Human background?)

Gnomes: Honestly, I'm tempted to roll up the small races into one meta-race, with sub races being distinct background choices.  On the other hand, teh Pech in Fantasty Craft were... uninspiring (and not why I was tempted to do this, incidentally.)  However, until I do: +2 Con, -2 Str, Small (small having fixed neutral effects (AC, speed, etc)

Orcs: Strong but dumb, often savages and monsters: +2 Str, -2 Int, lowlight vision (and several Half-Race options of their own...)

Halflings: +2 Dex, -2 Str, Small  Few (if any) half race backgrounds

That's it for the core races. Notice that at the moment I've pulled out a lot of the lesser advantages. I may fold a few more back in to make them a little more characterful, but really people should play the race they want, not the race with the best advantages (or the best for a build). Abilities, even if thematic, tend to lend themselves to 'building'.

Now, additional races/options:

Ideally I want to fold in some of the other sentient races as options. Some sort of lizard or draconic humaniod is a must (lizardmen or 'dragonborn') for the players.  I'm also inclined to add goblins to the small race roster, though I think I'll avoid tiny races.  OF course, as I recall, Goblins more or less stat like Halflings, especially the new, streamlined halflings, but that can be changed (bonus to con instead? Or penalty to Wis or Cha...).

Another consideration is to vary the number of background picks by race, with 'fixed' racial advantages (lowlight vision) reducing the total number of backgrounds available (and humans, of course, having one extra pick...)

So, here is some spitballing:
Lizardmen: +2 Str, -2 Dex, 1 DR scales

Warforged: +2 Wis, Construct (no Con, raise HD one step). Constructs will not have inherently all the immunities they currently have- notably those traits will instead be linked to attributes (constructs without Int have mental immunities (ditto undead), creatures without CON are immune to poison but don't heal...)

Ogres, +4 Str, -2 Int, -2 Cha, Large (and fewer background?)


Obviously this needs some work. However, I think with a couple of paragraphs of fluff text no one would really notice.

To head of questions:  Aasimar, Teiflings, half Elves and half Orcs are all 'background' options in this system, along with 'dozens' of variant races (Sheild Dwarves, Drow, whatever).

I am tempted to do away with 'Common' because it is so very much a meta-bullshit thing, but it has incredible utility.

Next up will be the 'background feats' themselves.  I THINK I'm looking at something like 1-3 per race (1 for 'powerful' races like Ogres and Dragonborn, 3 for Humans). Also, I'm not adverse to throwing in a few more color tidbits, so let me know what you think.  It may go slowly, since I'll be doing a bunch of creative writing to cover the bases and that is time consuming.


EDIT:: Altered Dwarves entree, dragonborn are now lizardmen, and ogres are just ogres
          At the moment assume Humans get three background picks, everyone else gets two, Ogres get 1 (warforged? construct is a powerful thing...)