The Gaming Den

I recall seeing a Necromancer that used Essentia. I can't find the original source, but I had nabbed a copy for future reference:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VyX ... sp=sharing

Stuff For the Tabletop Game for New Players

Koumei's classes in this thread are solid as hell.

How come whenever anyone makes a non-d20 system they suddenly go all out into making shitty rules that make the game inoperable and then claim to be 'rules lite' or hide behind the 'consult your DM' option?

RPGs are hard. The decision space is colossal and early on in design it tends to get bigger every time you resolve any of it. Sometimes the decision space keeps getting bigger later on too, like in 3.0 core you can be 1331 different classes by 3rd level, times races, times feats, times skills, times spells, times equipment, and a lot of those are quite similar, most are non-functional, but a lot of them are both functional and wildly different in what they can even try to do in the same circumstances.

And then there's infinity different circumstances.

So ...

Shitty rules: "this is a new way to roll dice, that'll be fun, right?"
Inoperable: "can anyone here math? No? Ah well, looks fun, right?"
Rules light: "this was surprisingly hard, so we stopped, have a book."
Ask the DM: "we know this bit doesn't work, just do something else."

Most games are where someone had an idea and worked at it for maybe a year, most of which was art and layout, and then published.


3e/d20 started like that in 1974 as OD&D and then had tens of millions of people playtest the shit out of it for 23 years across seven major updates and a host of expansions and then oldschool WotC took the best designers they could find and had them spend three years with a thousand system experts tweaking it in ways that the market had explicitly and clearly demanded by large majority as determined by extensive surveys.

Nothing competes with that. Obviously. They still missed most of the problems where their changes were novel compared to the first 23 years of playtesting, and it includes some bits where they over-fixed stuff to make it better instead of competitive, and other bits where they decided not to fix things at all because it was not demanded of them.

WiserOdin032402 wrote:How come whenever anyone makes a non-d20 system they suddenly go all out into making shitty rules that make the game inoperable and then claim to be 'rules lite' or hide behind the 'consult your DM' option?

The shortest possible answer: Dunning-Kruger effect.

It's the same reason why indie game developers who insist on writing their own engines tend to create products that not only fall way short of their original vision but also kind of suck on their own merits. When you think you are such a genius that you are going to reinvent the wheel for the better, you don't use any established development methodology, and you won't condescend to use any element of any existing framework as a matter of principle, you will naturally come up against the limits of your own vision and skill sooner rather than later.

Making your starting place atop the shoulders of giants is not a sign of weakness, it is the only way you are going to improve on what already exists. But if you're a narcissist (or marketer) obsessed with your own self-image over the product, more interested in being thought of as a game designer over making games, you probably don't want to hear that.


Oh shit how did that get here. I didn't mean to do that. F1 help me.

tussock wrote:A compelling argument for continuing to use d20

Mord wrote:More compelling arguments for sticking with d20

So, building off of this, is d20 OGL still a thing? Is it legal to use d20 SRD rules for things, or do I have to go about with rampant terminology changing and such?

It is. There's something about WotC not being able to revoke the open license thing. So you can still use the OGL by its terms. You can also use Pf's system, which allows you to reprint stuff about ability score generation and XP.

Yeah, you have to avoid product identity like proper names of the game, the sample characters, the gods, the fantasy places, and a few other things. Check the SRD if you're not sure. Avoid their art like the plague.

There's also OSRIC as an AD&D version of the SRD if you want to walk back some stuff, and a few other games and expansions from various companies available, like almost all of Pathfinder, which probably has the odd thing worth taking.

Problems arise in that there was some good development popped up as closed content during 3.5 (like the Warlock is a much better Sorcerer everywhere Sorcerer is used, and the Bo9S is all closed and Crusader/Warblabe are pretty fun compared to Pal/Ftr), and there's even some good concepts in 4e here and there around things being level appropriate at the point you choose them for your PC instead of not doing that.

And you might want a hard cap on levelling, like 12th level, or a bit higher as you give the classes who aren't Clerics, Druids, Wizards, and Sorcerers, something to contribute at high levels like the Tomes do, or maybe just nerf the shit out of high level casters you're going there. Because the game gets weirdly counter-intuitive in many ways up there that don't really match the official world-building. Maybe do something different with treasure, and XP, because you have to write something and advancement has some questionable issues there by default anyway.

But it's a super solid dungeon-crawler with functional downtime and get-to-the-dungeon checks, and interesting enough grid combat and monsters that feel challenging and fights that end and a gigantic kitchen sink of monsters, spells, and items where most things do what they say on the tin and don't make you feel bad for trying it.

Except Monks. Monks need replaced with something that works at all.

Making a monk that's good would not be hard, as long as you made the monk after you wrote the monster manual instead of the other way around.

Grek wrote:Making a monk that's good would not be hard, as long as you made the monk after you wrote the monster manual instead of the other way around.

Making a monk is hard and it isn't just because of the monster manual. It largely has to do with the tension that automatically exists between monks using unarmed strikes and weapons being better than unarmed strikes. If you make a monk that is better when using a sword, is it really a monk?

In real life, it takes a lot of work to be good enough at martial arts before you can reliably punch bulls to death. But it's also something a man with minimal training, a nail and a sledgehammer can do. It takes a lot of training to snatch an arrow out of the air, but blocking an arrow is something anyone with a shield can do. Martial arts is 'hard mode' because anything you could do with martial arts, you could probably do with a tool instead. Running up walls is awesome, but ladders are a thing.

If you model monks after something you saw in Dr. Strange, you might have something that works and goes to high levels, but that's nto what a lot of people have in mind.

Honestly, no. You can easily just side-step that problem by giving monks unarmed strikes that are just as good as weapons. The standard Monk does this explicitly. The Tome Monk does this by giving them a slam attack. Whatever. Making it so that monks don't have to use the shitty numbers you assign to untrained unarmed attacks isn't a difficult question, it's rules-writing 101.

Yes, fluffing abilities is hard without going full-on Goku. But that answer to that is to bite the bullet and accept that you either need to rescale your challenges to all be defeatable by a sufficiently good martial artist, OR make your monks go full-on Goku. Pick one and stick to it.

Grek wrote:Honestly, no. You can easily just side-step that problem by giving monks unarmed strikes that are just as good as weapons. The standard Monk does this explicitly. The Tome Monk does this by giving them a slam attack. Whatever. Making it so that monks don't have to use the shitty numbers you assign to untrained unarmed attacks isn't a difficult question, it's rules-writing 101.

Even rules-writing 101 is hard. Even giving monks a weapon-appropriate damage roll doesn't really address the problems. You also have to allow the unarmed strikes to be treated as any type of weapon (piercing/bludgeoning/slashing) and give them answers to common DR at appropriate levels, plus the ability to actually hit. And if you succeed, you're going to have some people who are upset that monks are better than knights or people who are upset that knights are better than monks.

That's what really makes it hard.

People were willing to believe that monks were 'wizard killers' for a long time (there are probably people who still believe that) so it didn't matter that they were scissors to any other martial characters rock, as long as they beat wizard's paper reliably. So the first hard question is are monks supposed to be able to hold their own as martial characters, or not? That's a philosophical question, not a numbers question.

deaddmwalking wrote:

Grek wrote:Honestly, no. You can easily just side-step that problem by giving monks unarmed strikes that are just as good as weapons. The standard Monk does this explicitly. The Tome Monk does this by giving them a slam attack. Whatever. Making it so that monks don't have to use the shitty numbers you assign to untrained unarmed attacks isn't a difficult question, it's rules-writing 101.

Even rules-writing 101 is hard. Even giving monks a weapon-appropriate damage roll doesn't really address the problems. You also have to allow the unarmed strikes to be treated as any type of weapon (piercing/bludgeoning/slashing) and give them answers to common DR at appropriate levels, plus the ability to actually hit. And if you succeed, you're going to have some people who are upset that monks are better than knights or people who are upset that knights are better than monks.

That's what really makes it hard.

People were willing to believe that monks were 'wizard killers' for a long time (there are probably people who still believe that) so it didn't matter that they were scissors to any other martial characters rock, as long as they beat wizard's paper reliably. So the first hard question is are monks supposed to be able to hold their own as martial characters, or not? That's a philosophical question, not a numbers question.

The answer is yes. This is not a philosophical question, the only kind of question it should be is rhetorical. The Monk is a martial character. It needs to be able to succeed at the tasks martial characters undergo. If it cannot do that, it isn't an effective character and needs to be reworked.

People will complain about the Monk being able to punch things as hard as a dude swings a sword, but people will complain about anything. What's important is that a majority of players are okay with what the Monk can do and that the Monk is not a sucker option.

I think that you could have a functional monk with powers of mobility and repositioning, but assuming that monk is a martial character, it doesn't necessarily follow that it is a class and not just a package you add to your martial character.

In AD&D, the Monk was a nerfed Thief. Half the thief skills, a few spell-likes, and no backstabbing. Terrible class, like just complete garbage, until about 15th level when the growing stack of speed, attacks, and damage finally started adding up, which was the only bit anyone remembered. But it took so much XP that everyone else was still better.

And then Fighters got +1/+2 and half an attack on Weapon Specialisation in UA and Monks didn't even have enough reason left to exist in 2nd edition at all.

In 3e, they're still a nerfed Rogue. Rogues work because you can sneak attack all day, and the Monk didn't get that at all. The attacks were carefully nerfed to always be worse than a Fighter, and the spell-likes are the worst spell progression of anyone, Paladins do more.

Because the 3e Monk doesn't really do anything well, people suggest it should instead be as good as the fighter without needing to waste equipment or gold on weapons or armour. Which is, like, yes, it should do something, but how about just give him sneak attack. Maybe a little slower than rogues, 2nd, 5th, 8th, or something, should work OK with flurry.

Also, give Fighters sneak attack, at some modest rate. And Paladins for smiting like Pathfinder does, and Rangers for favoured enemies. Like, a source of damage that scales with level is very important in 3e, because the big monsters have 1000 hp, and even the middling monsters that turn up in groups have 200 hp.

And then give everyone better saves.

>>Also, give Fighters sneak attack, at some modest rate.

I feel bonus damage should be a standard part of the flanking effect, with Rogues just being better at it.

I also feel there should be a bonus for 'unengaged fighters', like if nothing attacked you last turn you get some bonus because you can focus on offense instead of dodging sword swings

Specific abilities to distract people is working backwords from what should already be baked into the system.

As for monk, it shouldn't be a separate class but a subset of being a fighter. Qigong powers are the norm for mythological warriors across the world. Cu Chulain jumped like a ninja and had a secret special move for throwing spears through people. And in the Asian fiction with punchy flying monks, EVERYONE who's a great warrior learns to do that stuff.

------

Thanks for the link to Tome classes. A related idea is... the caster has their spells known to them, but what they 'memorize' is the 'colors of mana' to cast them.

So they'll start with two slots that can be filled with R, B, Y, then they have a list of known spells that are cast with RR, YY, BB, RY, YB, etc.

It's fiddly for the sake of being fiddly, but hopefully adds to a sense of 'characterization' too.

I feel bonus damage should be a standard part of the flanking effect, with Rogues just being better at it.

The monsters are fine, the Divine Power Clerics and Bear-shaped Druids are fine. There's a lot of things don't need the help in a basic d20 makeover.

In a whole new game where the monsters, the Clerks, and the Druids, aren't secretly all better Fighters than the Fighter is, I probably still wouldn't put in generic added damage for positioning, because the risk of everything being a game to prevent anyone getting positioning advantage, and new failure modes in combat where a numbers disadvantage is impossible to come back from.

Yes, Tussock, you shambling husk of a sentience. A game of area-denial is what we in the biz call a fucking game at all in the first place. If somebody can do it so well that they achieve victory then victory is allowed to be a thing that you get from doing well and not from open-palm slamming one of those red buttons from Staples that you romhacked to say "I hit a thing with my axe!"

OK, yes, but it's then also much harder to handwave the grid during more complex 3d play where one is trying to juggle the imagined simultaneous movement of opposed groups. If the grid is a very important thing in the game for everyone, you've just got to use the grid.

Sounds like a potentially interesting game of D&D minis (/4e) and progressively less good as your combats move away from that platonic form, really. Just another way it's not going to be robust.

What do people think of thematic game terms? I'm working on some basics, and I'm debating naming the ability scores with a car theme, so Chassis for body, Shocks for agility, Chrome or Paint for Appearance, and so on, to fit into a 50s car culture milieu.

Is it too gimmicky? Too distracting?

It's too gimmicky for a completely straight laced serious game. Fortunately, that isn't what you've described.

The only example I know of offhand is the five stats in Wasted, which is vaguely a parody of Fallout 3 and has five stats named so as to spell out SHOTS in keeping with the alcohol theme.

Yeah, I definitely am not shooting for a serious game. I mean, hell, I've got red-skinned Coop devils running around with hot rods that run on hellfire.

What I'm looking at is Chassis (body), Wheels* (agility), Jets** (intelligence), Lights (perception), Paint (charisma) and Roar (willpower)

*originally I had Shocks for agility, but I've been told that seems more like a name for willpower

**Jets is actually 50s slang for smarts, and it fits into the car theme sorta

Prak wrote:What do people think of thematic game terms? I'm working on some basics, and I'm debating naming the ability scores with a car theme, so Chassis for body, Shocks for agility, Chrome or Paint for Appearance, and so on, to fit into a 50s car culture milieu.

Is it too gimmicky? Too distracting?

Shocks as agility would be confusing for me if I just picked it up. My preference is clarity for rules text and flavor goes with what you do with it

Prak wrote:What do people think of thematic game terms? I'm working on some basics, and I'm debating naming the ability scores with a car theme, so Chassis for body, Shocks for agility, Chrome or Paint for Appearance, and so on, to fit into a 50s car culture milieu.

Is it too gimmicky? Too distracting?

You should approach the question from the perspective of someone who may be familiar with cars but has never played a roleplaying game, and ask if the terminologies make sense.

You'll find more traction (hah!) using Mariokart descriptors since those have more penetration into gamer minds. Maybe there's somewhere in the middle between that and 50's slang.

If you were just putting lipstick on top of something like 3e I'd understand this renaming of attributes, but with a system from scratch it doesn't make much a sense to me to be trying to shoehorn it into a 6 attribute DnD analogue.