What Power Sources do we Believe in?

[RandomCasualty2]

Which means that the "Class" is in there not to determine whether and when you swing a sword vs. heal your allies - but instead what it looks like when you use your ultimate sword slash.

I guess the next question then, is whether the classes have any mechanical difference?

For instance, if a Necromancer and a Mentalist both get single-target ranged attacks, are the Necromancer's different on a mechanical level, across the class as a whole? Such as Necromancy damage spells taking, in general, longer to take effect but having nastier debuffs attached, or Ki attacks being lower damage but very hard to resist or evade.

And if not, then are classes even necessary?

If classes are just flavor text, then I'm not sure why we even need them.

[Username17]

I guess the next question then, is whether the classes have any mechanical difference?

For instance, if a Necromancer and a Mentalist both get single-target ranged attacks, are the Necromancer's different on a mechanical level, across the class as a whole?

Absolutely. The idea here is that you'll be writing these ablities as distinct abilities, not merely reflavoring abilities already written.

-Username17

[Orion]

Since it seems self-evident to everyone else as well as me both the first time I said it and when I tried to explain it, I have to assume enemy action. .

Another "no" vote. I think Manxome was in the right...

And regarding the latest version of your agument, even if we believe you that taking two AoE is impossible or undesirable, you're still wrong. Consider:

Each PC in your scheme, as I understand it, selects, lets say, an attack and a defense.

Taking the Limited case of black and white magic as the only classes, one's option are:

Black, Black
Black, White
White, Black
White, White

Assume for the moment that these are all equally likely to be good. One of them will be the optimum combination of powers. In this example, the "best" build will be equally likely to be single- or multi- classed. However, if you've decided to roll up a Black Mage, you are at a disadvantage compared to a character who decided to roll up a Black/White mage, by the weight of probability.

If you make three or more choices, it becomes extremely likely that the most effective builds will all be multiclassed. Single-classed characters disappear from the game.

[ckafrica]

Well this could possibly work if there is a series of ability lists and each player has to choose a certain amount of discreet powers from each (the number the have to choose from being substantially less than the total available. Say each player gets 2 lists and the choose a new power from each every level.

Now under the assumption that we will attempt to make all the powers as equally worthwhile to take as possible, and there is a lot more powers on the list than levels, it could hopefully work out that a list could be chosen twice by a player to access more of the cool powers available on that list.

Now it might be possible that better synergies will be possible from other combinations but if reading the people on Paizo tells us anything, its that being completely equal, class for class, is not a lot of people's top priority.

I'd like all choices to be close, but I am not going to get bent out of shape at the power differential of say the 3e cleric and wizard. As long as enough cool balanced stuff is available, I'm sure that there will be some happy to play a straight character type . We just have to make sure that there is enough there to be worth it

[K]

And regarding the latest version of your agument, even if we believe you that taking two AoE is impossible or undesirable, you're still wrong. Consider:

Each PC in your scheme, as I understand it, selects, lets say, an attack and a defense.

Taking the Limited case of black and white magic as the only classes, one's option are:

Black, Black
Black, White
White, Black
White, White

Assume for the moment that these are all equally likely to be good. One of them will be the optimum combination of powers. In this example, the "best" build will be equally likely to be single- or multi- classed. However, if you've decided to roll up a Black Mage, you are at a disadvantage compared to a character who decided to roll up a Black/White mage, by the weight of probability.

If you make three or more choices, it becomes extremely likely that the most effective builds will all be multiclassed. Single-classed characters disappear from the game.

You have a second assumption there: that there will be one optimum combination.

The point of the Orders and fixing kinds of effects to them is that they aren't that different. AoE's will all work basically the same, and the unique mechanics associated with any one power will work slightly better in some situations and slightly worse in others, and will be designed to be synergy neutral. Mostly, differences are in theme so that people feel that they have a different class.

Since that is a core design goal, any synergies will be equally small and situational. The "optimum" in one situation will not be ideal in another, so in any particular battle you may wish you had been Black, Black/White, or White.

If you were talking about 3e Wizards and Clerics, you'd have a point. Each effect on their list lives in a vacuum, effects are designed to offer synergies, and there is no unifying mechanics for anything or even theme restrictions, meaning that Cleric/Wizards are better Necromancers than equal level pure Cleric or Wizards.

[Talisman]

Well this could possibly work if there is a series of ability lists and each player has to choose a certain amount of discreet powers from each (the number the have to choose from being substantially less than the total available. Say each player gets 2 lists and the choose a new power from each every level.

I agree with this. This sounds very good.

I could also see certain powers being multi-sourced...you have to have access to both sources to gain the power. Say, Radiant Fist of Heaven (Light/Ki), Demonslayer (Martial/Light), Bane of the Living (Martial/Death), etc. This provodes an additional way to differentiate classes who have similar sources...a fighter (Martial + Skill) and a paladin (Martial + Light) may share some powers, but the fighter can never learn the Martial/Light powers, nor the paladin the Martial/Skill powers.

Someone wondered why even have power sources if source = class (forget who; too lazy to check). To them I answer: Sources are an easy way to quantify powers and what effects they can have, and an easy way to write new powers.

For instance, you might gain a Shroud of Shadow, which halves the damage you take from all [Light] powers. Or your paladin's Righteous Blade attack might damage most critters, but damages + stuns those with the [Dark] tag and ignores [Dark] defenses.

[Username17]

K, I have no idea how you intend to remove "synergy" from the game. Heck, even bullshit abilities like "reduces enemy movement" synergizes with certain kinds of attacks more than others. Your hand waving away of differences and synergistic effects is completely unreasonable. Flat out: it's never going to happen.

Even 4e, a game which is so far into ability interchangeability that I don't want to play it has ability synergy. Some ability combos work better together than others. An attack that is better if used on an enemy against which you have combat advantage is better if one of your other attacks sets up combat advantage than if your attack pushed the enemy backwards instead. Your blithe claim that you can make an interesting game where picking abilities at random is as good as picking them with a discerning eye is completely unwarranted.

No one has ever made a game for which that statement is true. I don't think it's even possible or desirable to make a game for which that is even nearly true. Straight up: the objections that people keep bringing up to this plan of yours - myself included - are extremely sound and you have brought nothing but assurances to calm those fears. Every time you've put down a concrete example, it has been shot down immediately and decisively with math, and then you've said accused detractors of getting bogged down in specifics. It does not hold up. It can't hold up.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

I'm going to take the time to say I'm actually not entirely comfortable with the no synergy goal either.

But more because I think it CAN be done. At least in large part.

K has noticed that synergy is not in fact exclusively this weird ass thing that happens by accident and that you can actually strongly influence if not outright control it by design choices.

Dispute that (the nugget of wisdom, not the fact that K noticed it) and I'll call you an idiot.

Personally I'd rather his conclusion be "and so lets use our control over the rules we are writing to write in a certain level of accounted for and expected synergy". Which he has kind of done, but the bar on how much is perhaps a tad low.

[Ice9]

Synergy is a good thing, most of the time. It's more interesting to decide something like "I'm going to make a burning oil area between me and the enemy, then hit them with a hex to reduce their speed, then snipe them as they slowly cross it", than something like "I'm going to use a blast spell, then another blast spell, then more blast spells as needed."

Synergy should definitely be taken into account when designing powers, but trying to eliminate it seems neither possible or desirable.

[K]

K, I have no idea how you intend to remove "synergy" from the game.

And that's why I can ignore everything you said after that. Not only because you have my intentions wrong, but because there is a basic failure of imagination there.

Save the negativity until after I've written up the idea to my satisfaction. Ranting at me does me no good.

[Orion]

K, I have no idea how you intend to remove "synergy" from the game.

And that's why I can ignore everything you said after that. Not only because you have my intentions wrong, but because there is a basic failure of imagination there.

And this is why you are insane.

Remember, no synergy means more than just "no supermoves." It also means no negative synergy, at least, under your model, within one clas list. It has to be true that not only does knowing Fireball *not* make you want to learn, say Immobilizing Blow over Weakening Blow, but also that knowing Fireball does not make you less likely to want Wall of Fire.

Admittedly your idea about "order" is the right idea; it genuinely will help, tremendously. But I still don't think you can succeed.

Go write your system until you're ready to join the reality-based community.

[Judging__Eagle]

K, I have no idea how you intend to remove "synergy" from the game.

And that's why I can ignore everything you said after that. Not only because you have my intentions wrong, but because there is a basic failure of imagination there.

And this is why you are insane.

Remember, no synergy means more than just "no supermoves." It also means no negative synergy, at least, under your model, within one clas list. It has to be true that not only does knowing Fireball *not* make you want to learn, say Immobilizing Blow over Weakening Blow, but also that knowing Fireball does not make you less likely to want Wall of Fire.

Admittedly your idea about "order" is the right idea; it genuinely will help, tremendously. But I still don't think you can succeed.

Go write your system until you're ready to join the reality-based community.

It could work.

You just need to have taking an option look equally attractive as other options.

Sort of the way that the RoW feats were done. You don't always select TWF or Blitz, and even abilities like Lighting Reflexes are awesome for Rogues (I mean... that's an impossbile idea pre-RoW, no high Ref save char would have grabbed PHB Lighting Reflexes) as is Great Fortitude amazing for a Barbarian (also, an other impossible to grasp concept pre-RoW, no one would have ever grabbed PHB Great Fort for a PHB Barbarian).

One way that you could do it is that each ability isn't so much more than just that. An ability.

Fireball does not do damage. It sets people on fire. If you want to blast people you have to maybe get more fire powers; scorching ray (burns one target faster or does actual damagae to one target), fire-wall (which actually deals damage, since it stays in place), flaming sphere (a moveable mini 'wall of fire' really), pyrotechnics (control fire/smoke, make an already made fire explode at the cost of extinguishing it), conjure flame (to create light and/or light things on fire in melee range or shoot fire shots at range), flame blade (an effect that lets you deal "Fire" damage with melee attacks, but doesn't set things on fire and you can't shoot at things).


So, you could do the same with every ability.

The more "Like" powers that you select, the more that your existing powers get beefed up.

So, the fire/ice mage can hold people in place with frost nova, but they can't actually deal a lot of damage with Frost Nova or even fatigue, paralyze or SoD the creatures targeted by their Frost Nova. Maybe their Frost Nova ability only reduces movement at its most basic form.

On the other hand, such a character can set things on fire; which a dedicated Ice mage could never do.



What could be done is that you have fairly generic abilities which each have a small list of "potential" Power sources like so:

Slowing Blast [Necromantic, Water/Air (Ice), Nature, Arcane, Psionic, Earth, Primal]

You project a (40' Cone or 20' radius centred on you) blast of Typed energy that reduces movement by 1 square per 5 HD that you have. If centred on you, this ability does not affect you.

Focus: If you have other abilities that share the same Power source you gain the following benefits:
Total Powers of the same type: Benefit
2: When used your ability deals 1d6 points of damage per 5 HD that you have.
3: This ability reduces affected creatures attack rolls by 3
4: This ability turns the affected area into Difficult Terrain for one round.
5: This ability Slows affected targets, they get a save
6: This ability Fatigues targets, they get a save

Examples:
Necromantic [Drain Stamina],
Water/Air (Ice) [Frost Blast]
Nature [Entangling Vines]
Arcane [Force Barricades]
Psionic [Speed Deciet]
Earth [Grasping Ground]
Primal [Fearsome Roar]


So, a player could pick an ability as an Ice-powered ability; when they pick an other power, if it's able to be an ice ability, then the new ability is an ice power.

.... that would need to be hardcoded. If you pick an ability, and it shares a potential power source with an ability that you currently have, then the new ability has the same Power source as your existing ability.

Therefore, in order to pick up a new power source ability, you have to select an ability that doesn't share a potential power source with a power that you have; which sort of removes synergyizing to a degree.

However, this method is really complex and time consuming, since you need a master list of abilities that you assign 'some' powers to.

Also, you're not really removing synergizing. Instead of synergy if you pick an ability that matches, you get new power nearly all of the time you pick an ability.

An Ability from a different powers list is giving you a new optional move; while selecting a new Ability from one of your existing Power souurces both gives you a new abillity that's tied to your power source and improves all of your abilities that are tied with that power source.

[Username17]

Yeah, since K is apparently throwing a diva tirade and refusing to listen to input until he makes his ultimate masterpiece that will show us all, I unfortunately think that it is time that we ignore him back until he gets over himself somewhat. I am not just openly skeptical about his plan: I am flat antagonistic to it on both practical and thematic grounds.

But frankly, since K is choosing this time to isolate himself, it comes time to put forth ideas and forward motion on other fronts. For the record: synergy is not just inevitable, it is good. Synergy, both between a character's own abilities and the abilities of their compatriots is one of the primary sources of tactics - something which I think most of us can agree is good for the game. DOT effects are always going to want to be paired with delaying tactics, and inaccurate attacks are going to want to be paired with resistance curses. This is not avoidable, and even if we could avoid it we wouldn't want to.

---

Which brings us back to my proposal. We know that synergy is going to happen, and we know that people are going to actively seek it out. And that's fine, we just have to work it into our calculations.

The basic minimums that a character needs to be a viable adventurer are actually extremely minimal. People need to be able to shiv a goblin guard, and people need to be able to carry treasure, attack a goblin archer on the other side of a rive, manipulate door handles, walk through hallways, and hide behind a tree while an enormous monster stomps past. None of these are particularly negotiable and they have no business being class limited. So these core conceits do not belong on "class lists." They go to the "everyman skills" and we move on.

Furthermore, there are a fair number of things that no one has any particular claim to. The ability to use a bow, light the darkness, or sharpen a knife is potentially useful for an adventurer, but it's hardly role defining. These and many other abilities should be available off a single "universal ability list." Characters can and must get a number of abilities off this list.

And finally, we have the "class lists." These are ability lists that you get to choose one of. These lists have a bunch of things on them, and you get to make several selections off this list. And many of the things in here will self synergize, which in turn will lead to the formation of several distinct "build" types within any of the ability lists. But the thing is that some of the best synergies will be between abilities that are not on the same list - which in turn will encourage people to join up with characters who are doing different shit. Perhaps the best Damage Over Time effects would be found in Narakan magic while the best Battlefield Control effects are from Tir Yag Yoni magic. Done properly it means that the best one-two punches are always delivered by two or more players working together rather than by having one player mix and match and outperform all others.

---

Now let's talk about some things that I think are bad: Buffs. I don't like them. I want them to go away. A much better system than buffs is curses - as they have a similar effect but they don't give turn advantage to people lying in ambush. In general, I think the number of things that benefit the teleport ambush and the five minute work day should be reduced as much as possible. And getting rid of buffs is certainly part of that.

In the story you can still use magic to get super strong, bu only by dint of building magic into yourself from magic sites over a long period - which is to say gaining levels.

-Username17

[Judging__Eagle]

Yes, buffs are annoying.

They either are too small, or they get to be too overbeasring to game play.

I'm playing Dungeon Siege LoA and noticing this. The buffs to stats don't really get bigger, they just last longer per casting the higher level you are.

And their durations stack; but that is only good in a game. Also, you have to cast the spell like 20 times to get it to last 2000 seconds.

So, if you have a "buff", it's really a class ability that you always have?

[K]

Yeah, since K is apparently throwing a diva tirade and refusing to listen to input until he makes his ultimate masterpiece that will show us all, I unfortunately think that it is time that we ignore him back until he gets over himself somewhat. I am not just openly skeptical about his plan: I am flat antagonistic to it on both practical and thematic grounds.

Maybe it's not a diva fit, but a rational response to unproductive behavior?

As long as the feedback is "we'll use bad math and flawed formal logic that ignores key variables and premises to discredit your theoretical models" and "none of your ideas are good because I prefer my own ideas' untested assumptions and balance", then it is true that I'm not listening to that kind of feedback.

Considering that you rely on a rhetoric of shouting down ideas, character assassination, and appeals to your non-existent authority and larger fonts, I'm sure you've got a great system in the works. It really speaks to your strengths as a "lone gunman" game designer.

I'll continue to take feedback from anyone who's not a douchebag about it and thinks that spending pages mocking me personally for flaws in an unfinished system is an OK or productive thing.

It's the put up or shut up phase. Make a commitment to an actual mechanic with real examples and we can dispense with the contentious hypotheticals, or admit your opinions are only superior in your head. It's what I'm doing, and the advantage is that you can quickly tell when the feedback you get is constructive or just dick-waving self-promotion.

[K]

K, I have no idea how you intend to remove "synergy" from the game.

And that's why I can ignore everything you said after that. Not only because you have my intentions wrong, but because there is a basic failure of imagination there.

And this is why you are insane.

Remember, no synergy means more than just "no supermoves." It also means no negative synergy, at least, under your model, within one clas list. It has to be true that not only does knowing Fireball *not* make you want to learn, say Immobilizing Blow over Weakening Blow, but also that knowing Fireball does not make you less likely to want Wall of Fire.

Admittedly your idea about "order" is the right idea; it genuinely will help, tremendously. But I still don't think you can succeed.

I never said "no synergy." That's Frank straw-manning this argument.

I have been talking about decreasing the damaging effects of synergies at the design level to a manageable level.

You can do that in several ways:

1. Make effects interact more. Synergies like "solid fog +fireball, rinse and repeat" work because the fog is designed to be all good for the attacker and all bad for the defender. Change this effect so that it operates as cover vs. AoEs and ranged attacks and its power as a synergy is greatly blunted.

2. Remove designed-in synergies. Buffs like straight stat boosters are only for asymmetric power, so by simply not using them you remove huge potentials for harmful synergies. Spells like enlarge suck when used as stand-alone effects, and are designed only to find value in things like grapple builds and summoned monster blocking.

3. Ensure similar synergies. If every class has powers set to the Order system, then the potential synergies are also similarly-aligned. For example, this means that if a Warrior has a synergy between his 1st Order ranged power and his 4th Order Wall power, then there will be a similar synergy with every class's 1st Order ranged and 4th Order wall power, so it won't even matter much if you have a Warrior's 1st Order ranged power and a Wizard's 4th Order wall (like you will in a party).

4. Acknowledge Nominal Synergy: People will decide at certain times that some combos are better than others, and some will actually be so. Game mastery is inevitable and the tradeoff for choice, but the important test is: "is this synergy substantially better than what someone else is getting?" As long as that answer is "only a little better" or "debatable" or "at the cost of this other useful synergy", you are good to go.


I'm not saying that this idea isn't extremely ambitious. It is, and there is little doubt that flaws in the system will need to be playtested out.

[Username17]

I'm sorry you feel that way K. I liked working with you on earlier projects.

But your current thing of insisting that everyone who doesn't agree with you must be making an invalid argument and then putting them all on ignore - that's not even vaguely productive. That kind of behavior is something that isn't going to go anywhere. So indeed, go do your thing, show me wrong or don't.

-Username17

[Draco_Argentum]

Frank, you're doing rather the same thing. You still haven't articulated why classed is the right choice for TNE in a way that doesn't come off as 'I'm right bitches'.

So lets hear it. You have given the pros and cons of both classed and classless systems in your own posts. State the reasoning for deciding between the two.

---

Moving on to buffs. While I agree about tactical asymmetry caused by using non-combat time to boost combat time I still want to be a claw powers psy warrior. I think theres a difference between a buff that gives you a level appropriate weapon (which you'd have anyway) and a buff that makes already level appropriate attacks better. I think a solution would be to handle claws as a free action to activate, just like quick drawing a sword. Then they stay on until you need to go take a piss and realise that sharp hands will be a disadvantage.

[Username17]

Draco, I've actually addressed your demand several times. But I'll use really short sentences in order to attempt to appease you.

Variety. Inter-party synergy.

Slayers-style open ability selection modified with arbitrary divisions allows for constraints that enhance cooperation and therefore enhance a cooperative storytelling and tactical game. Done.

-Username17

[Ice9]

but they don't give turn advantage to people lying in ambush

However, why shouldn't they? Maybe scry-and-die is bad for the game, but the concept of an ambush - as something that has a real purpose - is, at least IMO, something the game should support.

For instance, the PCs scout ahead and find that there's a pair of trolls in the room up ahead. They have know what trolls are, have time to prepare, and strike when the trolls aren't expecting it. Should this give them a significant advantage over blundering into the room unprepared? Hell yes it should. It shouldn't be a "fair fight" at that point, because honestly, strategy means avoiding "fair fights" like the plague, and if you can't do that, then your strategy doesn't really accomplish anything.

This is one of my complains with 4E - there's little advantage to being prepared for a fight over just kicking in the door and saying "Hi, we're here to kill you, so get ready to fight!"

[RandomCasualty2]

So, if you have a "buff", it's really a class ability that you always have?

The problem is that people want to be able to swap out buffs. If you're just going to have them as some innate class abilitiy, then you might as well go the 4E route and give everyone the same BaB boosts and boosts to ability checks equal to half their level and they can simply describe that as buffs.

The reason the wizard has a +10 to his strength check at 20th level is because he has all manner of magical runes strengthening him and so on.

But I think most people want something more in depth than that. They want to be able to sometimes use bull's strength and sometimes use cat's grace or haste.

The answer I think to buffs is the 4E sustaining mechanic. Give each buff a sustain minor. That means that you effective got a few buff slots you can throw up and that's it. And each buff you have up takes away one of your actions.

[CatharzGodfoot]

You still haven't articulated why classed is the right choice for TNE...

TNE is The New Edition of D&D. There are a lot of reasons to go classed or classless in a fantasy RPG, but I think the most compelling reason to do have classes in TNE is legacy.



I'm still interested in the original Magic-like 5 power sources presented in a generic 'M:TG' form (actually a re-translation from Sumeru) and the default setting form (Sumeru). One-color classes or two-color, I don't really care.

[JonSetanta]

TNE is The New Edition of D&D. There are a lot of reasons to go classed or classless in a fantasy RPG, but I think the most compelling reason to do have classes in TNE is legacy.

So far it's turned out nothing like D&D at all. Expected Sacred Cows have pretty much been sacked in TNE and those were the only common trait carried over between D&D editions.
Well, that, and d20 rolls.

Labeling something legacy is a matter of opinion. Justifying a 'need' for classes is as valid as stating that we want classless.

Rather than define an opinion by logic and argument, take a vote. You won't come to the conclusion between class vs. classless by reasons.

[Username17]

Rather than define an opinion by logic and argument, take a vote. You won't come to the conclusion between class vs. classless by reasons.

Since people have actual reasons for wanting to do classed or classless design, and there are valid reasons to do one or the oher, that sentiment is laughable at best.

-Username17

[CatharzGodfoot]

So far it's turned out nothing like D&D at all. Expected Sacred Cows have pretty much been sacked in TNE and those were the only common trait carried over between D&D editions.
Well, that, and d20 rolls.

...

Rather than define an opinion by logic and argument, take a vote. You won't come to the conclusion between class vs. classless by reasons.

I'd posit that the 'sacred cows' of D&D can be reduced to the six attributes, hit points, magic items, and classes with levels. And argument could be made for experience points as well, but those don't affect play as directly.

If you look at the thousands of games which have evolved from D&D, those are the things they tend to keep, and those things have been present in every official edition. You could get rid of them, and quite possibly make a 'better' game in the process, but I don't think it would be D&D. Especially if you plan on major setting changes.


So, do we want to drop the D&D pretense? Fork the project? Stop pretending that Frank hasn't been the sole author of almost all of the material thus far?