On /tg/, there's a lot of discussion about D&D (Big shock there) and a lot about which edition is best. I was thinking that maybe we could come together and create our own! Piece together certain systems and try and see what would be the funnest to play/run. Or maybe just things you would like to see in an edition, officially. Things like guns, certain monsters, a feat, or just a simple change in mechanics. The way this will work is you can reply with "Canon," to things you want to see. 10 "Canons," means we put in the list of things to see. OP will compile a list of these thjngs, and we can modify them from there.
Magic items are a rare bonus, not a requirement to make the math work.
Unless you specify a baseline, it's going to end up as a camel. You cannot please the whole playerbase - and that's a good thing. It would be possible to develop an old rules set that is no longer supported, or perhaps try to find a "happy medium" between two different editions.
>>44488950
No more stat sticks. Enchantments gives unique effects, not +5 to a stat.
Multiclassing is restricted.
Must be min lv 5, and can only switch once.
Fighter/mage is fine.
Mage/cleric is fine.
Fgt/mage/barb/monk/cleric is not.
Breaking alignment carries an xp penalty.
Prestige classes require min lv of 10, and prevent any other class afterwards.
You opt into archmage class, all levels from then on will be in archmage.
>>44489240
>>44489826
accidentally tripcoded trying to number the xkcd
>>44488950
>>44489270
Good
>>44489327
>>44489417
>>44489367
Shit. Requires a billions fucking classes.
>>44489367
>Breaking alignment carries an xp penalty.
You people go on about role play encouragement mechanics such as fate points and the 5e's inspiration (both for and against) as if it's some was new trend but dnd actually has all had it.
>>44493527
Wut?
One simple fact that should be written in; is that the PC's must answer for their actions.
Kill a guard? Get a bounty.
Kill the bounty hunter? Bigger bounty.
Kill more? Get ready to face something nasty when the bounty gets big enough.
Insult the nobel? Get ready to face all sorts of bullshit. From harassment to ambush to arrest on false charges.
Burn down the inn because "lolfunny"? Get ready to have someone seek you out to pay for it.
The realms don't tolerate murderhobos for long. Killing goblins and burning ogres is fine, try that shit in town, and there will be trouble.
>>44493876
>Someone actually requires rules for dealing with player dickery
Wow, are you dickless or what.
>>44493712
The idea that there's should be some mechanical effects for acting in character. .
Old dnd didn't out right tell dm to hand inspiration points to players to 'encourage good role playing' like a lot of modern games do. But xp penalties are much in the same principle despite the fact no one liked them much.
How do we solve the Martial v.s. Caster divide without making one inherently better, or going the "everyone gets abilities magic, sorta" route of 4e?
>>44493915
Ever have the displeasure of a roll20 group?
Half of them think if they can beat (NPC), then fuck em'. And for some fucking reason..some DMS allow it.
Never had that issue on TT. Only online.
So ya, put it in the book.
>>44493968
If you're the DM and think that this is something that would have repercussions, you simply DO that instead of hope that some day the books will allow you to react to your players dicking around.
If you're a player in the game, and everyone else is fine with it while you can't deal, you leave and let them play their game the way they want to.
>>44493941
Proper DM work. Don't allow PCs to bend spell descriptions.
NPC bad guys aren't all mindless drones who stand there waiting to be hit.
>npcbadguy ambushes party>>44493941
>spell caster in the group. Target him first.
Its not that difficult really.
This will never work because of the widely varying opinions on what makes D&D good.
That said, my suggestion is that all casters get fewer spells per day, unlimited cantrips/orisons/whatever, and have slightly more potent class abilities as a cookie. These class abilities might allow the regaining of spells, the ability to "lock" a spell into at-will/rechargeable, or a tiny dip into the abilities of another class. (I mean, look at Gandalf. Dude could swordfight and ride like the wind; he rarely used any big, flashy spells (turning the Balor, Command Person) in favor of more subtle ones. He was only level 5, or so the old saying goes, but clearly had a touch of ranger or fighter under his belt.
Also, the only spellcasters who have to prepare their spells are Wizards and other Int-based mages. Everyone else is spontaneous. Why shouldn't a god be able to give his Clerics exactly what they need? (Based on the length and sincerity of their faith, and thus level, of course.)
>>44494019
Then by your logic..no rules needed.
>>44494023
Now the fighter is even more annoyed because enemies are literally ignoring him for the mage and he can't even protect anyone any more.
Through this decision, everyone has less fun. Congrats.
>>44493941
That divide has only been a substantial issue for a little less than half of D&D's history. Prior to Wizards getting the IP, magic-users and clerics were an important part of the team but fighters had significant advantages. For example, fighters had the best saves and got preferential treatment for magic items, while spellcasters automatically lost their spells if they were slapped (let alone seriously hit) while casting.
Lest anyone think that the caster explosion in 3e was a surprise, TSR designers openly stated that they felt that their own restrictions were barely enough and would repeatedly warn DMs to keep casters on a short leash.
>>44488606
The correct answer to this is to rejigger 2nd edition by compiling and writing your own PhB, which is tailored to a specific area of Forgotten Realms and pulls various area-appropriate kits and specialist mage/priests, streamlining them into core classes, collecting fluff-appropriate spells from the entire catalogue, and compiling locally-sensible equipment lists while reducing the fluff to have fewer characters over level 5 in the world so that you can run the whole thing the way you always wanted to.
Which I've maybe been working on for a year, or so.
>>44494056
Wut?
Wizards don't have defense spells?
Make them use them instead of loading up on fireballs, and then crying that encounters are too easy.
>>44494042
>Also, the only spellcasters who have to prepare their spells are Wizards and other Int-based mages. Everyone else is spontaneous. Why shouldn't a god be able to give his Clerics exactly what they need? (Based on the length and sincerity of their faith, and thus level, of course.)
Probably better is to make all casters either full spontaneous (Sorcerer style) or semi-spontaneous (Spirit Shaman style)
>>44494047
No rules needed for something like this. This is something you're supposed to dictate as the DM, because why the fuck would you need rules to say that the town of Buttsfuckville does not take kindly to your bullshit and has issued a bounty on you for killing people?
In fact, if you're in a game where this should be something that's frowned upon, why the hell would it be unclear that this would happen? And if you're in a game where everyone is fine with this, why the fuck would the rules actively dictate that this way of playing is now banned? Because you don't like it?
Fuck off the edge of my dick with that passive-aggressive "I'm offended and therefore there can be no fun for anyone!" bullshit. If the rest of the group wants X and you hate X, you walk. You don't pray for the word of god to protect your pasty ass.
>>44494127
But everyone is still going after the wizard. The fighter would have maybe wanted to actually engage someone in a fight, actually be a tactical asset. Now everyone is walking around him as quick as possible to get to the wizard before that asshole can do something.
I mean, sure, to some extent it makes sense to go for the caster, but if every battle becomes a game of "Smash the mage as fast as possible", then it makes martial classes even less relevant as everyone ignores them.
>>44494149
Listen buttsexfroth-drinker, you said if its fun, no rules needed. If it's not fun, then leave.
Thus, fuck any rules. Players do what they want. If DM approves, its all good.
That's beyond retarded.
>>44494071
The casting time for each spell massively balances the game out. Casters simply can't fire off their most power spell and run.
It is the same as using the 'speed factor' rule for weapons however. I'm not sure how you would added while keeping combat initiative simple.
>>44494211
>every battle
>implying that was said
The combats should be mixed up. Dumb NPCs don't do that. Dumb monsters don't do that. Clever bad guys will.
Having a battle where the wizard must defend himself, shouldn't trigger your autism m8.
>>44493925
Carrot and Stick.
both will make people do what you want under the right circumstances, but games are supposed to be fun.
stick takes the fun away.
>>44494213
You're seriously proposing that there should be hard rules, not just DM guidelines but fucking hard and fast RULES for how NPCs react to your PCs roleplay and actions. Do you even realize how fucking autistic that is? Not autistic as in "har har, you disagree with me", but autistic as in you are incapable of understanding social interactions and require strict rules to function.
This is something a DM is supposed to dictate by himself, based on his views and his understanding of the situation. If you're literally going into "If players do X, then Y will happen" on that scale, you're creating a computer game. You're also ruling that one type of play, which you're in no way forced to participate in, is now completely banned because you don't like it. Instead of working it out with your group, finding a new one or just not playing, you desire rules that do all of this for you, because you don't like something.
You're literally an autist. Please leave the internet before you get hurt.
>>44494241
>The casting time for each spell massively balances the game out. Casters simply can't fire off their most power spell and run.
That and auto-disruption of spells on a hit. (Also the no Dex bonus to AC while casting, but that's perhaps not as important after a few levels.)
>It is the same as using the 'speed factor' rule for weapons however. I'm not sure how you would added while keeping combat initiative simple.
Speed factor was not one of D&D's greatest hits: it was fiddly, strained disbelief, and added little tactical interest. If you wanted to get the AD&D style caster vulnerability back, the starting point is making one round the default casting time. (Add in a Metamagic feat for casting as a Standard Action at +2 Levels or something, just so it's not removing things from the game altogether.) Possibly some spells - especially the old-fashioned damage-dealers - could escape wholesale nerfing, on the basis that they're "war magic" while something like "Charm Person" isn't really intended to be used in a melee.
>>44494271
An example maybe.
>player makes a ng fighter.
>fighter murders and steals and does lots of bad shit
>cleric thinking about hiring group casts detect allingment first.
>fighter triggers some alarms
Player of fighter will then bitch because "omg I r ng!! See? It says on my sheet"
If players want to be a do whatever type..then make them ne and go on.
>>44494302
You're flatly out of step with D&D. There have always been specific rules governing NPC reactions. Tons of spells and skills do and always have relied on them.
You want a purely narrative-driven game? No problem.
But it's got fuck-all to do with D&D.
>>44494302
No dickbrain. Read the first post about consequences.
Get back to me after you do.
>>44494302
You trigger easy. You should learn to read. It would help you a lot.
>>44494042
>I mean, look at Gandalf
Pretty sure he was an angel, dude. Not to be mean or anything.
>>44493941
Everyone gets weak at-will options. Martials get medium strength encounter-recharge options. Casters get high powered daily options. Martials get battlefield control options, more precision with their use of abilities, and are better at locking down single enemies. Casters are better at area of effect attacks, buffing and debuffing, and messing with groups of foes. Martials get consistently useful utility that helps a little bit in most situations (trap sense, lifting / bending / jumping / swimming) and can be used whenever. Casters get 'silver bullet' utility that is very strong in a very narrow set of circumstances and can't be used very often.
Most importantly, all characters have a similar number of options at their disposal. If a warrior has four combat maneuvers, a caster has four spells. If a caster knows ten spells, a warrior has ten combat maneuvers. None of this Batman bullshit. Options = Power, and that's why casters are so good, because they have more options (and better ones). Limit the number of options and the strength of those options and you'll see parity between martials and casters.
>>44494373
Changing alignment to match behavior is fine.
If they act in a way that seems opposed to their alignment tell them to justify it, and if the justification doesn't match their alignment, shift their alignment. That's fine.
And I'm not saying no consequences for actions.
But if you dock me XP because I'm NG and I made a couple actions that are LG or CG; then fuck right off.
>>44494375
Even ( if memory serves me), a paragraph explaining how if the PCs get too salty, a visit from the kings champion may occur.
>>44494375
Spells and skill rolls nothing to do with roleplaying your murderhobo buttfucking the mayor and how people should react to that. Probably poorly, but making actual rules for that is ludicrous.
That's your fucking job as the DM to decide. The rules aren't supposed to tell you what happens when your character tries to antagonize someone. YOU need to decide that.
Also, there's still the fact that you're a whiny little bitch who feels that groups should be barred from playing the game their way instead of your way. Fuck you for being a That Guy.
>>44494424
I in no way meant lg vs ng. I was meaning the extreme. Lg PC, acting CE.
Docking the xp from an encounter that they break allingment like that, sounds fair to me.
>>44494422
>all characters have a similar number of options at their disposal. If a warrior has four combat maneuvers, a caster has four spells. If a caster knows ten spells, a warrior has ten combat maneuvers. None of this Batman bullshit. Options = Power, and that's why casters are so good, because they have more options (and better ones). Limit the number of options and the strength of those options and you'll see parity between martials and casters.
I don't think that's necessarily needed.
But if the martials only have 1 option, and casters have 50, that's a problem.
If martials have 10 level-appropriate options, and casters have 20; and they both cover a good variety of situations and utility, then they'll still be pretty closely balanced.
If the fighter just has 12 ways to "smack it with my sword" with little difference between them besides maybe range, the fighter really only has like 3 options: "short range attack, mid range attack, long range attack".
>>44494458
>Spells and skill rolls nothing to do with roleplaying your murderhobo buttfucking the mayor and how people should react to that.
>The rules aren't supposed to tell you what happens when your character tries to antagonize someone.
Incorrect.
In fact, that's exactly what reaction tables have governed in D&D since the 80s.
>The rules aren't supposed to tell you what happens when your character tries to antagonize someone.
Also: I'm not the other anon you were speaking with. Just a fan of D&D who noticed that the things you are saying make me think you've probably never played it.
And hey: that's a-ok. There are plenty of RPGs. But what you're describing as things rules are never supposed to cover? Those are things that the rules have explicitly covered for 35 years.
>>44494458
>accuses others of being that guy
>insults anyone who disagrees
>"I hate you because you think your way to play is best way; when its my way that is best way"
Wut?
>>44494371
Speed factor was not one of D&D's greatest hits: it was fiddly, strained disbelief, and added little tactical interest. If you wanted to get the AD&D style caster vulnerability back, the starting point is making one round the default casting time.
Hmmm…. a whole round is a long time but it would i guess work. 4e had a lot of 'goes off next round' powers after all.
>>44494489
Even hen, I wouldn't dock the player's XP, they'd just face in-game consequences for their actions, and might experience an alignment shift.
If you murder the demon-slayer's daughter, you're 1) probably evil (unless you have a DAMNED good reason) and 2) you've just pissed off someone you shouldn't have fucked with.
If you butcher a village, a bounty is going to be put on your head and you're going to have to face off against a wide array of bounty-hunters. And no, they're not going to all be scaled so you can beat them. Some of them, your only options will be death, capture, or retreat.
>>44494515
Which is what was said. >>44493876
>a simple fact that should be written in
Not a list of specific rules. Just a couple paragraphs explaining it. Nothing new to the game really. And not something that should trigger an autisattack.
>>44494424
>>44494373
Maybe the solution is, I don't know, removing alignment? Then you get this:
>player makes a fighter
>fighter murders and steals and does lots of bad shit
>cleric thinking about hiring the group chats with the fighter
>fighter comes off as creepy and edgy
>cleric thinks the fighter is malicious and untrustworthy
>cleric decides not to hire the fighter for the job
>player of fighter bitches that his character is really a good and noble person
>DM cites his previous behaviour and how that clearly isn't the case
You still get conflict but at least it's not tied to game mechanics this way. This way, it's based on how people perceive their character's actions, which generally speaking is a little harder to hide behind than "It says Neutral Good, so the detection spell shouldn't detect anything!"
>>44488606
What was the problem between casters and warriors? I've read the 5E Rulebook, and it seems that both do their respective jobs well.
>>44494515
There's a difference between "Roll on this table to determine how badly the NPC is offended about your bullshit in vague terms of friendly to hostile" and literally deciding that the PC's roleplay actions must result in X because X is the only way the game can be played.
>>44494537
It's more of
>I massively dislike your shit because you're proposing one way to play the game, while I'd like there to be many ways to play the game.
>>44494635
Way to walk it back.
>>44494042
... they have shoes.
WHY do they have shoes???
I'm 100% on board with the human face codpieces. their lobster / humanoid anatomy, even their twin-clawed fingers are good.
But SHOES?
>>44494588
>Maybe the solution is, I don't know, removing alignment?
I've done that. it works okay.
I typically go with defining G, E, L, C, and tell players they can use them to sort of rough out their concept, but that the terms will have no meaning in game or mechanical impact. I then do away with or change any effect that comes up which detects or acts differently according to alignment. That woks well.
I do find it funny in our current campaign. All kinds of bad guys have "Anti-Good" attacks/weapons/traps set up, and they don't affect my N/N Druid, only the rest of the party. Good times.
>>44494635
As pointed out retard, d&d already talks about this.
Why it triggers you, I am not sure.
>>44494271
>>44494373
>>44494424
>>44494564
yeah but there is the debate between 'organic' role playing mechanics and 'meta' role playing mechanics
Rewards and punishments existing solely within the game's world logic, i.e. you steal stuff and get caught. Compared to the stuff like alignment bonuses and Kama points.
And
>>44494497
It could work, you'd have to test it and see how the player felt. Playtesting is undervalued severely I think.
>>44494589
Martial characters get better at killing stuff and not dying. Casters get better at killing stuff, not dying, and also doing a dozen different awesome things that martial characters can't, like teleporting, turning invisible, seeing things hundreds of miles away, and bringing back the dead. Casters also tend to be REALLY GOOD at killing stuff, especially groups of enemies, because AoE spells are crazy strong.
>>44494668
Instead of Alignment my game uses Drives. Characters list three behaviours, attitudes, or personality traits their characters have. When they follow those traits, they get bonus XP. When NPCs evaluate a character, their traits are what they tend to 'get' about the character at a first glance. Characters can change their Drives over time by spending a small amount of down-time and XP, not enough to hurt but enough to make them more thoughtful about what kind of character they want to RP.
>>44494588
Removing allingment?
Lose a lot of weapons and spells.
>>44494661
They're horrible mutants, not SAVAGES.
>>44494772
>drives
So you basically renamed allingment. And punish players that act outside of them.
If I am reading that right.
![[screaming].gif](https://i.imgur.com/x2DO7cZ.gif "[screaming].gif")
>This thread
>This concept
>>44494818
I think he's saying he plays D&D, but instead of D&D alignment, he uses oWoD "Nature". And instead of nature granting willpower it grants bonus XP.
>>44494951
Ah.
Got it. The m8.
>>44494776
Maybe those spells and weapons should be removed, if they rely on something as controversial as alignment in order to function.
>>44494818
Not at all. I rewarded players for acting in a certain way (that they chose in advance) instead of punishing them for not acting according to the behaviour the game outlines. For example, if a character has "Help or defend an innocent" as a Drive, and they do that during a session, I throw them an XP. If they have "Learn an enemy's secret" and they manage to find one out, they get an XP. If a character doesn't follow their Drives, they just don't get that bonus XP.
>>44494951
>>44494964
Yeah, it's similar to the oWoD mechanic but tailored a little more to the individual character. I once had a player whose character had "Do something or go somewhere forbidden" as a Drive. It led to some interesting moments, that's for sure. Another had "Best a worthy foe in a battle of wits", which really suited his (in-game) massive ego.
Personally I like Drives that represent taking risks or otherwise getting yourself into trouble or conflict. They encourage players to be proactive and it definitely keeps things from getting boring.
Removing alignment means reinventing the default setting. It'd be like taking the old Vampire: the Masquerade and removing the Camarilla, Anarchs, and Sabbat. You can do it, but you either leave a sucking hole in the setting or have to spin something to replace them.
If you're concerned about the controversies, spell out that alignment is not personality. It's alignment - a description of the forces with which an entity is aligned. That's the only fix required.
>>44494772
Shouldn't Martial be opposite? Be a really hunky mass of flesh that has the side-effect or learning how to kill faster than the other guy.
Aren't Casters just glass cannons? At least give them a reasonable cap on how many spells he may cast.
>>44493941
A more balanced spell list - If a wizard needs to open a lock then they need to have skill ranks in lockpick like a thief plus a powerful enough "use mechanical device" spell prepared instead of just having a Knock spell, and similarly sneak skills being more important for anyone wanting to make use of invisible spells and the like.
At the same time make "skill ranks per level" something tied to class levels rather than strictly INT so "skill" focused martials like thieves and rogues have a better skill rank economy to work with than INT focused casters.
>>44494371
Having no Dex bonus while casting would help but the weird intersect between the AC mechanic and casters was always Clerics and their combo of casting and heavy armor - probably be good to throw some "no dex modifiers to AC PLUS an AC penalty equal to the level of the spell being cast" - fluff reasons for this would be something like "your somantic components involve waving your arms up and around and leave your armor's weak points more vulnerable than usual" (could even make it tied specifically to divine casters - then have it be a feature of Paladins that they don't suffer the AC penalty.)
>>44488606
But I already have the perfect D&D for each type of D&D game I could want to run.
If I want to run a sandbox where the players are a small part of a big scary deadly world that lives and breathes around them, and continues flowing when they die, until one's lucky enough to claw his way to the top, I have B/X
If I want to run a fantasy-novel/fantasy-movie/fantasy-series/final-fantasy-game genre game, where the heroes are the protagonists of a story that revolves around them, I have 4e
If I want to have fun building a character, and play long enough to see if my weird build worked (sort of the same satisfaction as building a strong MTG rogue deck) then I have 3e-PF
If I want a game that perfectly emulates the "classic D&D" genre, as defined by people's first experiences playing D&D, which in all fairness has had over 30 years to develop into a full fledged genre... I have 5e
If you're going to try and create a new D&D edition/clone from scratch, you should first figure out what TYPE of game
>>44493876
Good GMs already include this shit
>>44488606
I forgot to finish my thought
>>44495221
>If you're going to try and create a new D&D edition/clone from scratch, you should first figure out what TYPE of game
should instead read
>>If you're going to try and create a new D&D edition/clone from scratch, you should first figure out what TYPE/GENRE of game you want the game to be well suited to run, or if you want to make a generalist game that can run any of them, but not as well as the specialist game (in which case, we already have FATE, SW and GURPS, so you're going to have to surpass some large hurdles to make THAT worthwhile.)
>>44488606
2e + battle grid of newer D&Ds.
wow that was easy.
>>44488606
Martials get At-Will and Encounter Powers that have in-comhat and out-of-combat uses.
Arcane Casters are reskins of psionics with spell points and augmenting.
Divine Casters get spell menus based on their deity/holy order/etc., rather than all the fucking spells ever.
>>44495045
Many prestige classes also use allingment.
This is because you need to "be" of a certain mindset to join that class.
Removing allingment voids requirements that make those classes "special". Sure you can fluff them and rp them, but you lose the static " feel " of the class.
IMO.
>>44495257
I couldn't agree more.
Sometimes explaining basic concepts can lead to better games. Not everyone started with good dm's.
>>44488950
>>44489270
>>44489417
Canon.
>>44493876
Canon with the addendum that these are just guidelines for how DMs should develop their settings and that there are skills that aid criminals in literally getting away with murder.
>>44489327
I don't like multiclass restrictions on base classes but the idea that prestige classes dominate the rest of your progression as per >>44489417 is great.
>>44495159
Martial characters get DPR multipliers, mainly in the number of attacks per round they get, Fighters especially. Casters get DPR multipliers in the form of Cantrips, plus their nuke spells like Fireball, Cone of Cold, etc. The problem is that a caster who hits a reasonable number of targets with an AoE is dealing above and beyond what a martial character can catch up to in a few rounds, meaning that unless you're looking at a REALLY long adventuring day the caster wins in terms of damage output.
>>44495324
A lot of those prestige classes are either tied to a religious order or an organization, which makes it easy to adapt. Here's two:
>A Priest of Pelor must uphold a strict code of non-aggression; they are not to initiate battle or make the first strike, but are allowed to defend themselves and their allies if necessary. They must heal the sick or wounded if it is within their means, provided those creatures do not mean them direct and meaningful harm. Finally, they must slay undead creatures they find, for Pelor finds such being abominable. Those that violate these tenets may lose these benefits until Pelor finds them once again worthy, and they cannot advance in this class until they do so.
>A Harper must follow the Harper code of discretion, justice, and freedom. They must keep their membership, and those of their fellow Harpers, secret unless absolutely necessary. They must act in accordance with the law, unless the law proves unjust in that instance or is being abused by someone in a position of power or authority. They must respect the freedom and free will of all sentient creatures, even if they do not agree with them, and should oppose any unjust detention of innocents by a government or local law enforcement. Those that violate these beliefs may find themselves removed from the organization and lose all benefits marked with an asterisk until they enter its good graces once again.
>>44489270
This is an idea I tossed around on the official forums during the 5e playtest, in hopes it would gain some traction. Clearly, it didn't.
I kept the +X magic items, but none of them would affect your accuracy beyond the +1 for being a masterwork/magic weapon. The +X instead was how powerful the magic item itself was compared to other, similar magic items. For example..
>Flametongue +1
Can be ignited as a swift/minor action. When ignited, gives off light like a torch, and attacks made deal slashing/fire damage instead of just slashing.
>Flametongue +2
Same as +1, but when an enemy is hit, they can be lit on fire. Enemies on fire take 5 fire damage a round until they are submerged in water or spend a move action putting themselves out. Anything that could reasonably extinguish a small campfire also ends this effect. The blade can't be re-ignited while a creature is on fire.
>Flametongue +3
Same as +2. The fire damage increases to 10. Twice per day, you can also make a ranged attack with this weapon by throwing the fire from it, using your normal attack and damage rolls as if you made a melee attack. An attack done in this fashion only deals fire damage.
And so on.
I'd have tried to make this myself if I could be assed to.
Martials can learn advanced techniques that are basically powers. However instead of the incredibly abstract and immersion-breaking nature of the 4E approach with limits based on things like encounters and days you can use everything at will but gain fatigue every time you do. You must pass a fatigue check to successfully execute the maneuver, a failure means it doesn't go very well and a critical failure causes damage from the strain. Abilities that should be more limited will incur higher amounts of fatigue so you'll never be directly told you can't swing your sword a certain way but realistically will have a hard time spamming your best tricks.
Optional: We could integrate this into spellcasting as a form of reverse spell points, as well as all of the other systems of the game. Fatigue could be a sort of equalizer between the archetypes, everybody gets tired and maybe the people doing flashier things just tend to get tired faster.
>>44495502
Well, just make the Caster really easy to hurt. Like, lower their hit dice or some shit. Give penalties to them for doing physical shit. Make their cantrips useful in esoteric ways.
>>44495575
Why not just adopt the Tome of Battle approach? That's basically what you're talking about.
>>44495659
Most of those had hard limits and slots though if I remember correctly, it was cool mechanically but didn't actually make a whole lot of sense. You can explain away why a mage can't just spam fireballs all day because you're making up the very concept of magic but "do a sweet flip and jam your sword in their eye" is a real enough thing that it should have real enough limitations. A growing strain that makes it riskier but not impossible paints a more immersive picture, to me anyway.
>>44495724
I strongly recommend giving it another look.
To address the point you've raised, all three of them can pull off their moves any number of times a day. The Crusader is working on inspiration and has slightly random access to their killer moves, the Swordsage needs to take a one-round breather every so often, and the Warblade is fucking awesome.
>>44494262
Do you really need a rule that says this? Obviously more intelligent enemies will do more intelligent things. A lot of the things I'm reading in this thread are things that could be solved by having a non-retarded GM.
>>44495992
Who said it needed a rule?
>>44495282
>2e + battle grid of newer D&Ds.
Yuck. No thanks.
>>44495659
>>44495724
>>44495784
Path of War & Path of War Expanded. Better than ToB
>>44496125
Only in the sense that Pathfinder is better than 3.5.
Or in other words, not at all.
>>44496198
No. not in that sense.
In the sense that it's the same concept but not the same implementation, and the implementation is better in path of war - particularly path of war expanded.
>>44495540
Interesting approach. You could probably get away with calling them Lesser / Common / Greater Flametongue instead of numbers, kind of like the versions of Giant Strength belts.
>>44495575
That sounds intriguing but it could go very, VERY wrong. Look at Slayers d20 for a fatigue system casting system, and D&D 3E's Truenaming for a skill-check casting system that has incremental penalties for multiple uses of spells (really utterances but they're the same thing honestly). So far I've yet to see such a system done properly, but if you can get it working I'd love to see it.
>>44495617
Have you seen how many people complain about Fighters not being able to protect the casters adequately? I feel like GMs who don't have their monsters attack the martials get tons of shit for it, especially after 4E came out and encouraged the mentality that defender types should be unreasonably sticky and punish those who don't focus them.
>>44496221
I haven't played Path of War. Indeed, I thought the class design was such a big step down from ToB that I didn't want to look at the rest of the work. Fiddlier recovery methods for the maneuvers is perhaps a matter of taste - personally I think that ToB's big strength is that the classes can just keep rocking. However, the stacking up of shitty little benefits to track is less excusable. (Their only real defence is that they're designing for Pathfinder and want their product to feel the same as Paizo's, and... yeah.)
Possibly Dreamscarred upped their game with the expansion, but I haven't seen it.
>>44496339
I like the expansion significantly more than the original.
They filled out the design space, and came up with much more interesting classes.
Scale able tactics level, which is not easy
From fast and narrative to completely game-y and grid based.
Maybe something like 5e with bounded accuracy that then has a core book to add deeper combat rules with its own classes and brief conversions from the PHB. Make a lot of the options there for martials as a separate system for all classes, like engagement or special effects like RuneQuest. Make a spell compendium with broken spells and new caster classes.
So you would have
>PHB/MM -> base game, "basic" monsters
>DMG -> items and DM advice, encounter design
>Tactics toolbox -> new classes, options, creatures for new system. Focus on combat
>Spell Compendium -> broken spells, spellcasting classes, snowflake races
>Setting books -> classes, encounters, fluff, new mechanics
>MM2+ -> new creatures for both combat options (basic, tactics), encounters,
>>44496397
Can't find a copy in any of the troves, but Dreamscarred's promotional material makes it seem like they basically just created hybrid martial/psionic, martial/arcane and - actually, I'm not sure what the Harbinger is but I'd guess it's another hybrid. I'll take it for granted that they're balanced options, but on the face of it they sound like micro-management hell.
>>44496588
>Scale able tactics level, which is not easy
I'm pretty sure that this can be done by stealing the "You wear them" approach from Exalted. It's just a matter of working out the best way to interpret troops as a thing that "clips on" to heroes. The bells and whistles (like a rule for people hanging out with the squad and doing other things) are pretty intuitive.
>>44496306
>You could probably get away with calling them Lesser / Common / Greater Flametongue instead of numbers,
Very true. I mostly stuck with numbers to intend for some to be able to have 6 levels, others less, etc.
>>44488606
Fantasy Craft
/thread
>>44488606
Fantasy C-
>>44498339
DAMNIT ANON.
>>44498339
>>44498445
Be nice. Some people like Fantasy Craft.
I just use Dungeon Fantasy from GURPS.
>No more stat sticks. Enchantments gives unique effects, not +5 to a stat.
Maybe not fully remove them, but I'd ruler you can only get a stat benefit from a single item or spell at an time. Just pre empt stacking +1 ones.
>>44488606
>I was thinking that maybe we could come together and create our own!
In spirit, this is how you end up with the bland garbage that is 5e.
>>44493941
It would help if casters were not a universal "all magic" thing while martials were split up far more savagely. In 3.5 for example, martials are split into "fighting" and "thieving" and such things, while casters are able to blow people to pieces, fly, and use magic to go invisible or disable trap/locks, all without dipping into anything but Wizard.
Martials are also reliant on multiple core stats to be competent (dexterity, constitution, strength) while Mages only really need to worry about dexterity and a single stat for spellcasting. It's a lot easier to build a good mage than a good fighter.
>>44493941
>How do we solve the Martial v.s. Caster divide without making one inherently better, or going the "everyone gets abilities magic, sorta" route of 4e?
What was so fucking wrong with just giving everyone magic like abilities?
>>44499171
Hercules and Achilles are total hacks and uninteresting, Anon, of course.
And Conan got rekt by wizards multiple times.
Thus, wizards must be superior.
>>44499226
>Thus, wizards must be superior.
Then why even have Martials at all then? Why not just make all the classes variations of wizards?
You could choose between playing a classic wizard wizard or a muscle wizard for defence.
>>44499226
>Hercules and Achilles are total hacks
Achilles was a spear user and so a total stab, Hercules was a bonker due to his love of wooden clubs and bonking women.
>>44499263
All characters can use magic, but those extremely proficient with magic devote more time to study, hence are weaker in other places. Non-proficient magic users confer a bonus to targets saving vs. the spells they cast. Also, a chance of the spell backfiring / reversing for non-proficient spell casters.
Clerical spells measured in piety. Average characters may eek-out a minor miracle, rarely. However, devout characters - those who use skill/proficiency slots for rituals, follow taboos, etc., can invoke these miracles more often.
I think armor making one harder to hit is dumb - armor should absorb damage, as well as hinder movement. In other words, someone could try to pick a lock, sneak, or cast a spell, but at a greater disadvantage when wearing plate armor or something. When armor absorbs damage, it loses a hit point. Of course, destroyed armor with 0 hp still confers an action penalty, if still worn.
Weapon restrictions are dumb. Instead, make weapons that would require more expertise 'cost' more to learn.
Shields can stay the same (i.e., make character harder to hit) However, when a shield blocks an attack, it loses a HP -
>>44498792
Why not combine Str and Con? Sure there are some examples of where strength and toughness don't quite match up, but I find them to be rather rare as far as melee beatsticks go in D&D.
>>44500202
That's what I do in my system. The stats are Might, Agility, Intellect, and Will. Might is Strength and Constitution, Agility is Dexterity because it's already a god-stat, Intellect is Intellgence plus the perception parts of Wisdom, and Will is Charisma plus the empathy parts of Wisdom.
>>44488606
IMPOSSIBLE
How it worked
>D&D was released
>first rpg ever
>became famous
>people with all sorts of different opinions on what a rpg should be played the same stuff
>yes, the same stuff. But why if some prefer other kind of stuff X and other think rpg should be about Y?? Because d&d was the only rpg on market and it got famous
>after some amount of time some discovered some stuff on d&d they decided were flaws
>the problem is many players found this but many found different flaws, that sometimes was a really good thing in the opinion of others
>new edition is released
>you have all those players that found flaws, quickly jumping into new system to find fixes to their flaws
>all this players quickly jumping into a rpg bring new (to rpg) players to the system.
>as was said what is a flaw to some on d&d is not a flaw to other player of the original d&d, so the new system dont fix problems, because if you fix some stuff to one guy you will be removing a thing another loves. In this case going to an extreme by fact way different people play the same rpg.
>anyway the new (to rpg players) play the new system, they have different point of views on what rpg is but yet play the same thing
>some dont branch to other rpgs
>after some amount of time they find flaws on this edition
>what is a flaw to some is not flaw to another and etc....
>this because they have all different opinions on what an rpg should be, this is not a problem alone as people can have different opinions about stuff (as some example you dont force everyone to listen to death metal), the problem is that they are playing the same thing while having different opinions about what rpg should be.
>new version is released
>those players quickly jump to new edition expecting fixes
>all those players quickly jumping into an rpg bring new (to rpg) players to the system
>the story continue forever
said that, d&d WILL NEVER BE FIXED
>>44501329
>d&d WILL NEVER BE FIXED
Not by WotC; sure.
I've seen some solid arguments that FC fixed 3.x. It's a pretty solid system.
Of course, FC was then basically abandoned, so it's functionally a dead system with only slightly more content than the barren wastes that are 5e - which is the reason I don't play either one anymore.
But the most important parts of "fixing" the game are:
>Well thought-out, and well-designed core game math patterns for stats, task DCs, HP & Damage, etc.
>Well balanced character options.
And for the game to be both fixed and not boring (IE Worth playing) you also need:
>A good variety of player options and customization.
>Either lots of premade challenges (IE Monsters/NPCs), or rules to make those challenges very quickly (as opposed to taking hours).
>5e has 3 of the 4
>FC has 2.5 of the 4.
Unfortunately, the "not boring" aspect is more important to many players than the "well designed" aspect, so many (myself included) are not satisfied with FC OR 5e.
>>44501406
Sorry, what is FC? It sounds interesting.
>>44501831
FantasyCraft
The company that made SpyCraft (a complete deconstruction and reconstruction of d20 modern) did the same thing with 3.5.
The math is well thought out, and it's very flexible in comparison to 3.5.
However, it has very few sourcebooks, and no proper standalone bestiary products or collections of prebuilt NPCs or adventures, so a lot more is left for the GM to take care of.
>>44501866
I should note, that while it is a system that closely esembles 3.x superficially, as I mentioned, it's a complete reconstruction, and so porting things over is not as easy as you might think
>>44501406
Sounds like 4e has 4/4 there.
>>44501866
>>44501879
Thanks anon.
>SpyCraft (a complete deconstruction and reconstruction of d20 modern)
Woah woah woah. This is even cooler. I have no idea how this got past me. I've been looking around for an update to d20 modern for years.
>>44501899
4e has 1, 2, and 4; to be sure.
I found the variety to be lacking (yes, there were "lots" of options, but many of them were basically the same thing with a different name & coat of paint).
But As for why I don't play it: I simply had other problems with the game, like how narrow each ability was, and how very few of them could be used in diverse and flexible ways. I recall nothing even a little like the In/out of combat combat versatility of 3.x shape stone/shape wood/fabricate; and those kinds of effects are things I really enjoy. But this one is a matter of taste.
4e is a well put together game. It's just a well put together game designed for someone with different tastes than me.
>>44501921
IIRC Spycraft even has 2 editions, anon.
>>44501899
The problem 4e has is that everyone hates 4e.
Aside from that, it's great!
>>44499941
>I think armor making one harder to hit is dumb - armor should absorb damage, as well as hinder movement.
"Harder to hit" just means absorbing damage. Every point of AC tends to be a 5% reduction in damage. ("Tends to be" because you get edge cases where the attacker is so good they can hardly miss or so bad they can hardly hit.)
Will your edition of D&D appeal to this type of player
No doubt many of you opened this topic thinking, "What the heck is he talking about? Treasure division is one of the more entertaining and enjoyable aspects of role-playing!" Well, not in my experience. I'll give you some background.
We play D&D1E. The campaign has been going so long (more than 25 years) that there are dozens of PCs. This means that there are adventuring parties composed of different PCs. One party might be composed of PCs A, B, C, D, E and F, while a later party might have PCs C and D replaced by PCs G and H and a party formed at an even later date might have PCs A, B, G, H, I and J.
As is typical in adventures, we kill the monsters, loot the treasure and vanquish the threat (or find the long lost item sought, or rescue the princess, or whatever goal needs achieving). And then what do we do with the treasure? Do we split it then and there, in the dungeon? No. Do we split the coinage and later, when the precise nature of the magic items are known, hand those out? Not quite.
We take everything back to our home base, which is ruled by a lawful good ranger and his equally LG magic-user wife (both of whom are high-level PCs), who have a Slate of Identification. This is a nice little magic user obtained many, many years ago in the treasure of a long-forgotten module. If you touch a magic item to it, lettering suddenly appears on the slate, unfailingly identifying the name and each and every magical aspect of the object. It saves the time, trouble and cost of using Identify spells, and there's zero chance of error.
>>44502163
Hate it.
Hate hate hate hate it.
>>44503787
Once all items have been identified, they're doled out to the adventurers, right? Wrong. They go into a vault, along with the coins and anything else we've found, including such mundane items as knickknacks. They'll be divided someday, just not right now. See, before treasure can be split, the exact value, down to the copper piece, must be determined. Once that's done, the value of all the treasure is totaled and divided by the number of adventurers. And there's the problem.
After one haul, there might be one item worth 15,000gp, another worth 8,000gp, and coinage and gems totaling 7,000gp. So we have 30,000gpv (gold piece value) of treasure and, say, six adventures. So each PC would get 5,000gpv, right? Except there are two items worth more than that. So we'll be told it's better to wait until there's more treasure, so it will divide evenly. Fine. So, following another adventure, we add a 12,000gp item, a 10,000gp item, and 2,000gpv in coins and gems. So, added to the other treasure haul, it means that each PC gets 9000gpv. And, again, there are items worth more than that. You can see the endless cycle forming can't you? Add to that the fact that different parties are often composed of different PCs, and we end up with Treasure A belonging to Group A Treasure B belonging to Group B etc. Of course, some of those members overlap. Have I lost you yet?
All of this means that treasure splits for our gaming group are not regular, casual things. They are detailed and highly organized events, done only once in a blue moon. We schedule a game session to do nothing but split treasure. It takes hours of real time. The sheets of treasure are meticulously typed and the precise value of each item is noted. The amount each PC on that particular list will get is noted. And then we choose the order (random rolls of the dice) and each person looks over the sheet, selects one or more things totaling his share, crosses that stuff off, and hands the sheet to the next person.
>>44503800
Our DM is usually not present at these splits. Several years ago, he insisted on being at one, for some reason. We had no problem with it, but told him they were long, tedious affairs that went until all hours of the night. He said it wasn't an issue. We gave him several chances to back out, but he said he would be there. And he was. Until 2am, when he finally admitted he couldn't take anymore and went home. We were still at it until nearly 4am. He hasn't shown up at one since then.
The most recent split involved twelve typewritten pages of treasure. We later calculated it had been the first treasure split in more than two years (real time, not game time). It had been so long, the younger players got together and created a video about the legendary nature of the treasure and the rarity of the split. (I'll have to provide a link when it's online; it was hysterical.) The division took about six hours, but only because there were three treasure sheets "in play" at all times. If we had done one at a time, from beginning to end, it definitely would have taken two sessions.
>>44503815
And... this is part of the fun, or something you want to avoid?
>>44502001
This post is oddly familiar...
If I said that those kinds of effects are in rituals now, your reply would be something along the lines of "rituals can't be used in combat", then I'd point out that you can have those effects in combat using powers (possibly linking in instant fortifications and other utility spells with similar effects), to which you'd reply "but those don't have lasting effects" to which I'd say "look buddy, in 4e you don't get lasting effects as a standard action. You can choose either rituals for lasting shit or combat powers for combat shit, but don't expect to snap your fingers and magic up whatever effect you like, 4e does not roll that way." then we either agree to disagree, or I call you out for being a wizard cock sucking faggot who should be playing Mage instead of D&D, depending on the tone the conversation we would be having takes.
>>44498744
>one of the best editions to date
>great balance between simplification and diverse character options for every class
>bland garbage
New things are awful, we get it.
>>44503791
>Hate hate hate hate it.
>>44504025
>pic
Love it!
Fighters are the best at fighting.
Wizards are absolutely shit at fighting and have little/no ability to influence fighting or killing or disabling shit. They are pure utility.
>>44504128
That is what enforces the 5 minute workday though
Before 1e, in od&d the only difference between a first level magic user a fighting man and cleric was the fighting man got +1 to hit and can use armour, the cleric got turn undead (no spells till later) and can use armour and the magic user got one free spell per day and can use found magic items
Limiting the magic user to the original Level 6 spells as the highest level possible and keeping spell level 7-9 as the non-canon optional "Epic" level spells rather than making those core, then making even more powerful epic spells (while nerfing the fighter) was one of the mistakes made later
Racial class and level limits.
Humans only(except halfelf bard) can get to unlimited levels.
No critical hits. They waste time and make combat too luck-based.
>>44504251
>be 20th lv fighter with a +5 vorpal blade
>I miss 1 out if 20 times still
Mfw
Monk idea I've always loved:
Monks still get their flurry of blows, but they can split up said flurry among their movement; so a monk can punch one mook, move a few spaces to the next one, and keep going until they run out. Their base attack damage is also lowered, BUT they get huge bonuses to disarms, trips, and status effect attacks to compensate. This will allow them to enter a room and bounce around tripping everyone, letting the fighter follow behind and fuck everyone up.
Basically, I wanted to let monks do something other than be a shitty halfbreed of a fighter and a rogue. Also, take all of the elemental monk's abilities in 5e and make them not-awful.
Use a dice pool system, with ability, skills and proficiencies, as well as situational modifiers adding to/removing from the pool.
At that point it pretty much stops being D&D, though.
>>44504320
Monks (and everyone else) already does this in 5e. You can split your movement up in any way you want.
>>44493876
That's the DM's job
>>44504302
>miss
Depends on your interpretation of the "to hit" mechanic. The level of abstraction is high enough that it probably doesn't represent thrusting a blade or whatever, but rather a general mishmash of attempts to harm the enemy. (This interpretation makes all the more sense in 1e's 1 minute combat rounds with their random target assignment.)
So if you find that skilled warriors "missing" a lot strains disbelief, the best fix is probably changing the lingo rather than the mathematics.
>>44504389
although in 1e, even a natural one is not an automatic miss, with a high enough rank on the tohit table you will eventually hit everything on a 1 and a natural 20 is only an automatic hit, no additional damage is awarded
>>44504429
Less "cheering the dice" is probably a good thing, to be honest. I'd rather hear "good idea" than "good roll" any day.
>>44504367
Really? Huh.
Still, I feel lower damage and bigger bonuses to other attacks would be cool. Something like a physical debuff character.
>>44503904
I believe I have had part of this conversation with you. We agreed to disagree, and it basically came down to "4e may be a well designed game, I'm clearly just not the target audience."
Whomever you had the angry version of the conversation with was someone else.
But that's my tangent of what I don't like about the system in general.
My point that it's "variety" is obscured/inflated by several powers and classes that are basically (mechanically) the same, still stands.
>>44504699
I have a hunch that 4e's lack of appeal to the old 3e audience is more about "the build" than variety. It's not so much that 4e doesn't let you do things, it's that 3e made doing those things well (or sometimes, adequately) more of a challenge.
>>44504699
>My point that it's "variety" is obscured/inflated by several powers and classes that are basically (mechanically) the same, still stands.
Similar powers within classes existing doesn't mean that the classes themselves end up being similar, or playing similarly, not to mention all the times a supposedly minor differences change entirely how a power ends up working because of how it interacts with other stuff (i.e. arcane keyword with white lotus stuff).
That said, you admittedly CAN build classes to be similar, and by the essentials era things cropped up enough that many classes ended up being similar to begin with (intentionally or no).
How about this:
>Do a D20 style system mastery game
>Fucking tell people that system mastery matters
>Like, really make it clear
>Do the first release as "Basic D&D" with classes that more or less optimize themselves - and call them Cleric, Fighter, Magic-User, and Thief.
>Then add "Expert D&D" with more open building challenges (named for the rest of the "classical" core), then "Master D&D" with more exotic subsystems (Psionics, Incarnum, that kind of thing).
>Make sure that the different tiers don't differ in their power level. The difference should just be that the Basic classes are straightforward with obvious options while the Master classes are exotic and have trap options.
>>44504841
>I have a hunch that 4e's lack of appeal to the old 3e audience is more about "the build" than variety.
That may be the case for some;
For me it's the following:
>I don't like X Uses/Y Time period as a mechanic. I prefer less dissociated mechanics. 3.x has the same problem, but to a lesser extent - it isn't literally the entire game.
>I like long-lasting (read instantaneous) effects that warp the battlefield/alter the tactics required in the battle/what have you, mid-combat in some way, as codified powers. 3.x doesn't have enough of them (but I manage), and 4e has even less.
>I don't like being locked into a class to the extent that 4e makes you be. I'd rather 3.x style mix & match if classes are required, otherwise just let me do it like GURPS and just build my character with points.
Again I reiterate. Just because I don't particularly like 4e doesn't mean it's a bad game.
I'd be much happier to play 4e again than if I was told "We're playing nWoD/Mutants and Masterminds/Rolemaster/WH40KRPG/d20 Modern"
>>44505066
>>I like long-lasting (read instantaneous) effects that warp the battlefield/alter the tactics required in the battle/what have you, mid-combat in some way, as codified powers. 3.x doesn't have enough of them (but I manage), and 4e has even less.
Like what, zones and walls and stuff? How much is enough for you, I'm pretty sure 4e has plenty. Unless you want them to stick around longer than for the combat of course.
>>44505066
>>I like long-lasting (read instantaneous) effects that warp the battlefield/alter the tactics required in the battle/what have you, mid-combat in some way, as codified powers. 3.x doesn't have enough of them (but I manage), and 4e has even less.
This is the point where I disagree. Lots of powers create zones that alter the battlefield, and there are quite a huge number of soft control stuff; even just things like marking, Tide of Iron for fighters, or shamans putting down spirits (which is basically their entire gameplan) means that the battlefield is constantly altered; the control isn't as hard as just putting down a wall, but those kinds of powers also exist.
>Unless you want them to stick around longer than for the combat of course.
I want a mix of ones that stick around and ones that don't.
4e has a several of the latter; true.
But yes, like:
>Suddenly stone wall with arrow slits to shoot through!
>Web!
>Ground = Magma!
>Wall of Ice!
>Wall of Magical Force!
>Ground Covered in Spikes!
>Plop down traps/mines mid-combat that you an trigger remotely or that the enemy will set off.
>Suddenly dense hedges the enemy has to slowly hack through.
>Quicksand!
>Enemy is glued to the ground!
>etc
>>44501406
>Not by WotC; sure.
not by anyone read the post again
>>44505373
What are you talking about? Tom Moldvay fixed it back in 1981.
>>44505373
>D&D will never be fixed
is not the same as
>Fixing D&D would result in different games for different target audiences.
And differences of opinion do not mean sloppily designed game mechanics are not sloppily designed.
In most respects, 4e IS a FIXED D&D (It's well a balanced and designed game instead of a poorly thought-through game). They just took an approach to fixing it that doesn't appeal to a significant portion of the D&D playerbase.
>>44505349
Fuck it, I'm an autist, here. I tried to do only wizard.
>Suddenly stone wall with arrow slits to shoot through!
Conjure fortifications
>Web!
Web
>Ground = Magma!
Fountain of flame
>Wall of Ice!
Wall of ice
>Wall of Magical Force!
Wall of Force
>Ground Covered in Spikes!
Stonewrack
>Plop down traps/mines mid-combat that you an trigger remotely or that the enemy will set off.
I can't find one for wizard, but it's a low level artificier power
>Suddenly dense hedges the enemy has to slowly hack through.
Witch Thorns
>Quicksand!
Landslide
>Enemy is glued to the ground!
Bigby's icy grab is effectively the same
>etc
etc indeed!
>>44505909
>forgot pic
>>44505059
>character builds
No
>>44504229
THIS
>>44496655
>>>44496306
>>You could probably get away with calling them Lesser / Common / Greater Flametongue instead of numbers,
>Very true. I mostly stuck with numbers to intend for some to be able to have 6 levels, others
Least / Lesser / Greater / Legendary / Epic / Artifact
>>44504229
Please no. Level caps don't actually achieve their goal of making the game about humans. If you want to do human-centric campaigns, make the human special ability a radical XP bonus. If using an OSR style XP table, doubling human XP works well.
How about a system that has a small set of Core rules and a much larger set of Optional rules? That way you can accommodate a larger variety of group preferences without them needing to homebrew your system.
Core
>1d20 + stat/modifier task resolution
>Basic PHB races with minor benefits / modifiers / traits and few of them for ease of play
>Fighter, Thief, Magic-User classes with specific abilities and progression
>Simple equipment and spell lists with no trap options
>Forgo most modifiers for the Advantage / Disadvantage system
Optional
>Additional classes
>Classless / multiclass options
>Alternate power types (like Psionics, Tome of Battle, and more)
>Magic items
>Complex exploration and social combat rules
>Building strongholds, cities, etc.
>Sanity, fatigue, and much, much more
Basically, make the core game fit in 10 pages and have 300 pages of extra you can use if you want to. Gets people into the game very fast while providing tons of content for when they get tired of the basic stuff.
>>44507076
Lv caps weren't about that. They were put in to balance the races a bit. 2nd edition explained it well.
1000 years vs 100. Why pick 100?
>>44507076
Human-centric. Lol
Why do I get the feeling that you like trans characters?
>>44508623
>Lv caps weren't about that.
Yes, they were. Gygax explained his objective pretty well in 1e.
>>44508673
>Why do I get the feeling that you like trans characters?
Probably because you're projecting your own repressed sexual urges onto other people.
>>44508775
No, they were not.
Straight from the 2nd edition.
>Page 14 DMG
If you have it.
Creature that live extremely long lives, could achieve levels beyond anything a human could ever reach. Thus lv caps are there to balance shit out.
>>44508908
The "Human-centric" - or to use Gygax's term "humanocentric" - justification for AD&D's level limits is stated in the 1E DMG. In case you weren't aware, First Edition AD&D preceded Second Edition and was the basis for the redesign. I accept that Cook & co kept level limits in for "balance" (although I don't know how they talked about balance with a straight face), but their rationale is not the origin of the rule.
>>44509090
Where in 1st end?
I know where the "balance" excuse is in 2nd. I haven't read it in 1st.
Got a page number? A pic? PDF? Anything?
And I will say it again. Racial lv caps make sense for balance. (Under the pre 3rd ed)
3-3.5, not so much with the human bonus feat. ( minor balance vs 8 levels though).
