Frank's got a good point here, which is something to keep in mind...
Right now, you're trying to piece together what seems to be a linearly progressive power scheme. As such, each level's not doing that much for a character. Imagine if each level of Wizard gave a single spell per day, and spell levels increased VERY slowly (logarhythmically). That's what you'd be going for to have something like this... unless you're just making the numbers linear and powers make the progression non-linear, you're going to have problems when it comes to mixing things around.
Personally, I see no problem with saying that there's a certain level at which nothing can surpass as a matter of course for the system. In any exponential system, you'll have to reach a point at which one 'level' must be capable of replicate a Judeo-Christian God-like power level. Really, once you hit that, you can't go any higher, so why worry about even NEARING that level... *shrug*
Basic mechanics design.
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Basic mechanics design.
Frank said:
"So you're thinking of a system in which everyone starts good in some areas and bad in others and gradually they all become completely identical because they can improve their bad abilities but can't improve their good ones and when scaled up sufficiently all characters are indistinguishable except by character backgrounds?"
Things to distinguish a character from other characters:
1. Feat choices
2. Skill choices
3. Ability scores
4. Proficiencies
5. History/Description
But yes, you make a good point.
Taking the system I am working on and mashin it awkwardly with D&D 3e is going to create some issues, since I've done away with classes completely. This is part of my ongoing experiment.
So far in my thing, character design goes like this:
1. You take Good, Medium or Bad in one of 9 areas (Will, Fortitude, Reflexes, Base Defense Bonus, BAB, HD, Skills, Magic "Aptitude", Magic Points)
2. You have to take as many bad things as good things, or can leave everything at medium.
3. For HD 1d6 is bad, 1d8 is medium, and 1d10 is good. Skills is more complicated, but roughly translates to Bad = 3e Ftr, Medium = 3e Bard/Ranger, Good = 3e Rogue. Magic Aptitude is basically just Magic DCs. Magic Points fuels the potency of spells and dictate how many damage dice your going to get, how long the spell will last, etc.
4. Every level you get a feat, at first you get 2. Most feats are part of a chain, and all feats have some requirement based on your stats (BAB for example). So someone that took good BAB is going to HAVE to take a fighting feat at 1st level since s/he won't qualify for magic feats. Later on characters begin to qualify for more and more feats allowing them to branch out.
5. I don't follow the same feat design rules as WotC since they are stupid. Feats can have multiple benefits. Magic feats in particular are quite versatile since I need to simulate the complexity of most D&D magic in under 100 feats. Fire using wizards, fire using clerics, and yoga-flame monks will all have the same Fire Magic feat, but they will use it in different ways.
6. A feat that allows you to increase a Bad stat to a Medium stat is powerful, but doing that for all your Bad or Medium stats results in a rather boring/tactically ambigous character. Since increasing stats is not necessary for secondary powers to work often enough to be useful, people are more likely to spend feats on things to increase their repertoire of abilities UNLESS their charater's roleplaying development demands an increase in a stat such as BAB or Magic Aptitude.
My final goal for the project is to be able to run almost any D&D campaign under my new rules, as long as some campaign canon can be ignored. As a bonus, I plan on having very streamlined rules on using monsters as PCs, and I have come up with a decent (but not excellent) solution to the monster attack sequences vs. unarmed fighting sequences problem.
But I'm divulging too much before this mess is complete. I should have a nice web version within a few months, unless I run into some major trouble. Such as Biochemistry 250, Cell Biology 220, Physics 113, Computer Science 117, and Philosophy of Law 2something.
"So you're thinking of a system in which everyone starts good in some areas and bad in others and gradually they all become completely identical because they can improve their bad abilities but can't improve their good ones and when scaled up sufficiently all characters are indistinguishable except by character backgrounds?"
Things to distinguish a character from other characters:
1. Feat choices
2. Skill choices
3. Ability scores
4. Proficiencies
5. History/Description
But yes, you make a good point.
Taking the system I am working on and mashin it awkwardly with D&D 3e is going to create some issues, since I've done away with classes completely. This is part of my ongoing experiment.So far in my thing, character design goes like this:
1. You take Good, Medium or Bad in one of 9 areas (Will, Fortitude, Reflexes, Base Defense Bonus, BAB, HD, Skills, Magic "Aptitude", Magic Points)
2. You have to take as many bad things as good things, or can leave everything at medium.
3. For HD 1d6 is bad, 1d8 is medium, and 1d10 is good. Skills is more complicated, but roughly translates to Bad = 3e Ftr, Medium = 3e Bard/Ranger, Good = 3e Rogue. Magic Aptitude is basically just Magic DCs. Magic Points fuels the potency of spells and dictate how many damage dice your going to get, how long the spell will last, etc.
4. Every level you get a feat, at first you get 2. Most feats are part of a chain, and all feats have some requirement based on your stats (BAB for example). So someone that took good BAB is going to HAVE to take a fighting feat at 1st level since s/he won't qualify for magic feats. Later on characters begin to qualify for more and more feats allowing them to branch out.
5. I don't follow the same feat design rules as WotC since they are stupid. Feats can have multiple benefits. Magic feats in particular are quite versatile since I need to simulate the complexity of most D&D magic in under 100 feats. Fire using wizards, fire using clerics, and yoga-flame monks will all have the same Fire Magic feat, but they will use it in different ways.
6. A feat that allows you to increase a Bad stat to a Medium stat is powerful, but doing that for all your Bad or Medium stats results in a rather boring/tactically ambigous character. Since increasing stats is not necessary for secondary powers to work often enough to be useful, people are more likely to spend feats on things to increase their repertoire of abilities UNLESS their charater's roleplaying development demands an increase in a stat such as BAB or Magic Aptitude.
My final goal for the project is to be able to run almost any D&D campaign under my new rules, as long as some campaign canon can be ignored. As a bonus, I plan on having very streamlined rules on using monsters as PCs, and I have come up with a decent (but not excellent) solution to the monster attack sequences vs. unarmed fighting sequences problem.
But I'm divulging too much before this mess is complete. I should have a nice web version within a few months, unless I run into some major trouble. Such as Biochemistry 250, Cell Biology 220, Physics 113, Computer Science 117, and Philosophy of Law 2something.