Castles and Cocks, the Basics.

[Mistborn]

So it was 2nd ed Dark Sun or Ravenloff you were going for. Why didn't you just say in the first place so we'd know to stay far away?

Eh? I've never played 2e so I'm not sure what your getting at.

[deaddmwalking]

Sort of. Phalanx isn't a feat designed for PCs rather it's designed for mooks so it's less obnoxious when they show up in groups. So when three skeleton mooks try to stab your fighter they only roll once (with a bonus) and then if that roll hits they all hit and deal normal damage.

I think that if two of your three 'combat styles' are designed for 'mook hordes' and only one of them is for players, that your 'first post with actual game rules' is probably worse than useless.

Fundamentally, you're putting the cart before the horse. Building feats in a vacuum cannot work. Your idea of what the appropriate power-level for feats is incoherent. Your stated goal of giving people a few feats that are meaningful are completely contradictory to the example feats that you've provided. Claiming that 'it's not for PCs' implies some division in the rules between PCs and NPCs that you have completely failed to elucidate.

And as important as all of that is - as critical as it is - even if we set all of that aside, what you've presented so far is bad for the game.

If I have 12 skeletons that each do 1d6+2 damage and they need a 15 or better to hit, we can suppose, on average, that 25% of them will hit. The target(s) will take 3d6+6 damage. That is certainly significant at lower tiers. If I apply a +12 bonus to the attack (meaning I need a 3 or better) and I now do 12d6+24 damage on a hit, I'm absolutely destroying anything I hit at these tiers. Hell, I'm probably destroying a Tier IV challenge if I get close to it. Further, nothing in your feat description indicates that it is melee only, so we're back to 5e Skeleton Archers always winning.

And it's certainly possible that my reading of your feat is completely off largely because we don't have a game framework to discuss. I'm assuming that you have attack rolls and damage rolls and it works basically like 3.x because that's what you've been advocating. But you also include terms like 'combat advantage' that don't exist in 3.x with no indication of how they're earned and how they stack.

Your 'game' exists in your mind and you're trying to talk about it as if you've given everyone the basics to provide a meaningful dialogue. You have not. The only one that can give you any help right now is the voice in your head. And this may be harsh, but from what you're saying, I don't think you should trust it anymore.

[Mistborn]

The idea is that I'm designing monsters first and then using that to nail down what PCs need to be capable of. I thought that was the consensus behind how this project is supposed to work? Like that's the primary reason that shit needs a serious rewrite. The 3e monster system is batshit insane. See also Shadows, Giants HP totals, Dragons and Outsiders in general, ect, ect. Like the only reason that I've been posting feats is that monsters have them and that text is meaningless otherwise.

Edit: remember that Phalanx has a cap on the bonus. like that's in the actual feat description. so 10 skeletons attacking at once still only get a +2 to hit.

[deaddmwalking]

The +2 per tier wasn't clear to me whether that was the maximum each could contribute or the highest total bonus. If 10 people attacking together gets a maximum of +2, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to ever use this feat, mook or not.

12 Skeletons with a 25% chance to hit at 1d6+2 works out to roughly 3d6+6/round or 16 damage. 12 skeletons making a single attack roll with a 35% chance to hit is going to be much more variable (it usually does 0 damage) but when it hits it does 12d6+24 (68 damage). While the 'average damage' may look the same, in practice it is totally different.

It appears that you've misunderstood the advice to consider your threats before you build your game. It is not sufficient to develop 92 threats of levels 1-3; it would actually be better to develop 1-10 threats total that represent the lower and upper end with 'stops' in the middle.

Snake --> Griffon --> Gorgon --> Hydra --> Demon Prince --> ???

This actually gives a sense of what kinds of things PCs will need to do. If the Gorgon has the ability to turn people to stone, you're going to need abilities to counter or negate that. If the Hydra needs to have a thousand cuts and fire damage applied each round, your PCs are going to have to have abilities in kind.

The 3.x fighter is supposed to be able to fight a Hydra. He can't win. He doesn't have abilities that lets him cut off the heads and keep them from growing back. I mean, in 3.0 they had to develop sepcial rules to allow you to target heads because they handn't even considered it.

Developing Tier I abilities and then hoping they'll scale isn't going to work. You have to have an idea of what kinds of things PCs will need to be able to do in the future so she can lay out the development track appropriately.

If a warrior at the top of Tier 2 needs to be able to fight 12 mooks at once you might need more than +12/+6/+6 or whatever multi-attack you're coming up with. Whether it's 20 attacks (lots of rolls) or area attacks you need to be clear about it and set it up from the beginning so it makes sense.

Now if you don't have Warriors in Tier IV, you need to be clear about what you do have. Every class will need ways to address the threats they face at that level. And crucially, they'll need a way to get to the adventure to begin with.

[erik]

This was from my vague notes to self, so I doubt it is 100% coherent, but may serve for the purpose of illustrating what life Int can have if it doesn't give you bonus skills.

So... basically none is what you're telling me.

-Username17

I guess it is practically useless if you aren't interested in the bonuses for those skills. I think I still prefer people only caring about Int if they are an Int caster or invested in those Int skills over the Int bonus giving extra skills, but I'm not super committed to that position.

Skills are mostly cantrip level things anyway, at best low level spell effects. In that vein, it may be handy to have skills graduate into becoming spells. Maybe usable up to attribute mod per day. So if you don't have an int bonus then you can't use Heal skill (ack, I need to change name of Heal to Medicine if going to have a "Heal" spell too), to Remove Disease or Cure x Wounds.

[Mistborn]

The +2 per tier wasn't clear to me whether that was the maximum each could contribute or the highest total bonus. If 10 people attacking together gets a maximum of +2, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to ever use this feat, mook or not.

That's probally true, but there's some bonus cap under which Phalax is useful and balanced the problem is that that sort of fine detail work requires a more complete game.

Like the first major rules thing was to keep doing the 3e thing and run everything out of the create PC engine. Only I'm redoing monster HD to be less terrible. (Like one of the new rules going forward is that monsters have HD=CR in all cases)

Also univeral level/HD progression, that's also a thing now.

Level/HD	Bab	good save	poor save	feat
01	0	2	0	1st
02	1	2	1	2nd
03	2	3	1	-
04	3	3	2	-
05	3	4	2	3rd
06	4/2	4	3	-
07	5/3	5	3	-
08	6/4	5	4	4th
09	6/4	6	4	-
10	7/5	6	5	-
11	8/6	7	5	5th
12	9/7/7	7	6	-
13	9/7/7	8	6	-
14	10/8/8	8	7	6th
15	11/9/9	9	7	-
16	12/10/10/10	9	8	-
17	12/10/10/10	10	8	7th
18	13/11/11/11	10	9	-
19	14/12/12/12	11	9	-
20	15/13/13/13	11	10	8th
21	15/13/13/13	12	11	-

[deaddmwalking]

I'm not making sense to you, I don't think.

If your game is 'just like 3.x but better feats and restrictions on casters' then you shouldn't pitch it as a new game. Based on the suggestions you've made, you haven't fixed any of the problems with 3.x - you're just bringing them forward into your next game.

If your game is open to new ground, you're too fixated on the types of solutions that 3.x provided - even when they're bad.

For example, why do you have a 'good save' and 'bad save' listed for your attack progression? Do you think that is a particularly elegant solution? Is it designed to be a 'puzzle' where you can target the 'bad save' against a particular monster? If so, why isn't there a bigger difference? What's the point of a 'good save' and a 'bad save' if the usual difference is just 1 point? You'd save a lot of space just making everything a good save and nobody would probably notice the difference.

I'm not saying you can't use 3.x as a basis for making a Fantasy Heartbreaker. You absolutely can and it honestly isn't a bad place to start. But if you do, you need to decide what you're trying to accomplish and make sure your design decisions support that.

From your original post, your stated intention to make feats 'bigger and more important' is a bad decision. Your example implementation is inconsistent with your stated intention but is bad for other reasons. In the Den we often evaluate a game based on the stated design goals. You're too early in the process to fail so hard on first principles. You need to examine some of your base assumptions.

Others have pointed out that if you're making tiers, there is no reason not to make them equal. I agree with those others. Tier 1 should be just as many levels as Tier 2. Your claim that it should be shorter is nonsensical because you haven't explained why that has advantages. You can't say 'to avoid hit point bloat' because you haven't explained how hit points work.

3.x Hit Points tend to be one of the elements that people don't like about the game. At high levels you go from 'perfect' with 1 hit point to 'dead' with nothing in between. When attacks are regularly doing 42 points of damage there is no 'buffer' between 'okay' and 'dead'. You should consider that before going into attack progressions.

[Mistborn]

The purpose of the project is to make a "fan edition" of D&D one with a similar if slightly modified power curve to 3e but actually playable for 21 levels. Like that's why it's titled Castles and Cocks as a pun on Castles and Crusades, we're at the point where this sort of project is basically a retroclone.

Basic is levels 1-3 because a) those levels are traditionally a different experience than what comes after in D&D and b) I don't think people would want 3 more levels of basic tier. Like basic exists partly with the expectation that some people will just skip to level 4. Pushing the end of Basic back more levels just eats design space in service of a goal I'm not sure is worth perusing. The 3/6/6/6 distribution is good as far as I'm concerned, you can basically fit all of D&D into that.

[spongeknight]

So you are just making a worthless clone game? Why in the fuck would anyone want to play that instead of using their own damn houserules like they've been doing for a decade?

[erik]

I can't think of a reason.

[Mistborn]

So you are just making a worthless clone game? Why in the fuck would anyone want to play that instead of using their own damn houserules like they've been doing for a decade?

Because there are people in the world who are playing Pathfailure and 5e and I can at least do better than that.

Also more monsters.

D&Ds Fey were written at a time before "the fair folk" had reemerged as popular trope. Which means that D&D faries feel dated and kind of terrible. I'm changing that because this is a tome inspired project and that means that the setting is firmly planted in the iron age. The reworked fey a the flag bearers of team Chaos the way Inevitables are for team Law. They don't see themselves as bound by the laws of humanoid society, have a little in the way of empathy and genrally pull the kind of bullshit that makes it ok for adventures to stab them in the face. The come from the land of the fae which can be reached by portals both natural and magical. A common low level adventure is finding and destroying a fairy circle because fey are coming through and being a problem.

Fair Folk

Fair Folk, classically the fair folk tend to have weird banes and follow weird rules this is because they've been technically banished form the material plane. Here's what they are. They can't lie outright (so obviously you shouldn't trust them at all). They can't enter a dwelling unless invited. Any vow they swear is binding until they enter and leave the realm of the fae again.

Also they hate iron, any kind of iron or steel overcomes their damage reduction and deals an extra 1d6 damage to them. Simply touching any kind of iron burns them like it was red hot.

Sprite (CR 1)
Tiny Fey
HD 1 (3 hp) Initiative +3 Speed 15ft Fly 30ft good
AC 15 touch 15 ff 10
For +0 Ref +3 Will +1
Str 7 Dex 17 Con 10 Int 8 Wis 8 Cha 12
Bronze Short Sword +5 melee 1d3-2
Stealth +7 Bluff +5 Sense motive -1
Special Fair folk, amplified illusion
Feats Magic Attuned (Illusion)
One of the smallest and weakest of the fair folk sprites like to use their illusion magic to play “pranks”. These pranks tend to awfully unfunny or even deadly to the victims. Sprites usually flee rather than engage in combat since illusion magic and stealth are basically all they have.
Spell-like Abilities 2/day Phantasm (DC 13)

Fair Folk (Commoner) (CR 2)
HD 2 (13 hp) Initiative Speed
AC 17 (+3 Dex +4 armor) Touch FF
For Ref Will
Str 13 Dex 17 Con 12 Int 11 Wis 8 Cha 16
Bronze Rapier +4 (ld8+1) Longbow +4 (1d8+1)
Bluff +5 Disguise +6 Diplomacy +3 Craft (weaving) +4 Sense motive +2
Special: Fair Folk Dr 5/iron Glamorweaving
Feats: Combat Style Blade Dancing Magic Attuned (Enchantment)
Fair Folk Commoners are the "craftsman" the fae. They weave their glamor into objects to creates the clothing and tools that the other fae use.
Glamorweaving (su). The fair folks brand of illusion magic can do things easily that normal mages have difficulty with. Glamorweaving is one of them. “glamored items” have illusion magic woven so tightly into them that its “real” for game purposes. The bronze weapons that are favored by the fae have been glamored to be as strong as steal. The elegant and fashionable clothes that the fae wear are actually just grass, leaves, and bark that has been likewise glamored. However glamored items start to fail when the leave the possession of the fae eventually reverting the their shitty original forms. The fair folk tend to “forget” this fact and try to pawn their shit off on the residents of that material plane as if it was actually worth something. What assholes.

Spell-like Abilities 2/day Sleep 1/day Charm

Spriggan (CR 3)
Medium Fey
HD 3 (17) Initiative +4 Speed 40ft
AC 18 (+4 dex +4 armor) Touch FF
For + Ref Will
Str 15 Dex 19 Con 12 Int 10 Wis 10 Cha 12
2 bronze Scimitars +6 (1d6+2)
Stealth +9 Perception +6 Bluff +4 Sense Motive +3
Special Fair Folk DR 5/iron
Feats Dual Wield, Magic Attuned (Illusions)
The Spriggan are the scouts and skirmishers of the Fair Folk They like to us their illusions to coceal themselves and then jump out and attack with their weapons

Spell-like Ablities 3/day Phantasm (DC 12) 1/day Color Spray (DC 12)

new game content

new feats
Combat Style: Blade Dancing
1 (Duelists Dance) Once per round you may 'mark' an enemy within melee range. You gain a +2 competence bonus to attack roll vs that enemy and +2 competence bonus to ac against that enemies attacks until you chose a new target to mark
3 (Duelists Gambit) When you mark an enemy you may chose to forgo the bonus to ac and instead take a -2 penalty to AC. If you do so all melee attacks from that enemy provoke attacks of opportunity.

Magic Attuned. You are attuned to a sphere of magic, this occupies an item bind point. You gain spell-like abilities from the selected sphere based on level being attuned to a sphere occupies a bind point. Your X spell-likes are always cast at the highest level of spell or spell-like ability you have access to.
1st Xth /2day
2nd Xth/2day 1st /1day
3rd Xth/3day 1st/ 1day

Magic
On X spells: this is a new thing. D&D has fuck-tons of effects that are basically the a higher level version of a different spell. Well I'm hopefully cleaning things up a bit. Every sphere is going to have and X spell which scales based on the level that it's cast from. It helps cram more content into a smaller amount of spells.

The illusion sphere is pretty much that same as the old illusion spells, but the now the ambiguous situations that tend to come up are resolved by skill checks.

Phantasm
Illusion X (Figment)
Components: S
Casting time: 1 standard action
Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Effect:a figment that cannot extend beyond four 10-ft. cubes + one 10-ft. cube/level (S)
Duration: Concentration
Saving Throw: Will disbelief
Spell resistance: No
I am a master of the subtle art, how can you fight me when reality itself is at my command
Phantasm creates a Figment. A false sensory impression which is either Visual or Audible. It isn't real and can not be physically interacted with and can not do damage (though it can block line of sight and otherwise interfere with senses.) Any being who perceives the figment is entitled to a spellcraft (DC 10+your Spellcraft modifier) check to determine it's illusionary nature.
Disbelieving a figment is a standard action which applies to all Figments you are currently perceiving. A figment you have disbelieved is “transparent” to you and does not hinder your vision or other senses. You may specifically disbelieve a figment that is “transparent” if successful that figment is dispelled.

Augment: Casting Phantasm from a higher level spell slot allows you to add your choice of Visual, Audible, Thermal, or Olfactory components (one for each spell level beyond first)

Phantasm can be used to create quite elaborate ruses but doing so usually requires a Bluff check as opposed by Sense motive or Spellcraft

Color Spray
Illusion 1 (Mind-effecting)
Components: S
Casting time: 1 standard action
Range: 15ft
Area: Cone-shaped burst
Duration: Instantaneous; see text
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell resistance: Yes
Sometimes you need to reweave reality, other times you just gotta basilisk hack a fool
Color Spray releases a vivd cone of clashing colors. Creatures in the area that fail their save are stunned for 1 round and depending on their Hit Dice they may suffer additional penalties. Creatures in the area with the same or fewer HD than you are blinded and stunned for 1d4 rounds. Creatures in the area with more than 3 fewer HD than you are unconcious (and blinded and stunned) for 2d4 rounds

Enchantment
enchantments have been given a bit of a rework to better fit their theme of subtle mind magic. For example I've added a new component, eye contact which some enchantments now require. The bigger new thing is that if someone casts an enchantment on you it requires either a spellcraft or sense motive check opposed to the casters bluff or spellcraft to notice.

Sleep
Enchantment X (mind-effecting)
Components: S
Casting time: 1 Standard Action
Range: Medium (100ft +10ft/level
Target: One Creature/Special; see text
Duration: 1min/level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell resistance: Yes
The most thing to know about the mind is how to turn it off
Creatures that fail that fail the initial save are slowed and must make an additional will save each round to or fall unconscious. Slapping or wounding awakens an affected creature and ends the spell, but normal noise does not. Awakening a creature is a standard action.

Augment: Casting Sleep from a higher level spell slot changes it to an area effect effecting a 10ft per additional level radius burst which can effect a number of HD worth of creatures equal to twice your HD

Charm
Enchantment 1 (mind-effecting)
Components: S, eye contact
Casting time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25ft +5ft/2 levels)
Target: one creature
Duration: 24 hours
Saving Throw: Will Negates
Spell resistance: Yes
The best part of being an enchanter is all the friends you meet along the way
This spell convinces the target that you are a friend and causes them to view your actions in the best possible light. Note that this does not override the targets survival instincts or other loyalties. They'll still defend themselves and their allies for attack (even from you). Outside of direct combat getting a creature to do something dangerous or “against their nature” usually requires a bluff check opposed to the targets sense motive.

[spongeknight]

Because there are people in the world who are playing Pathfailure and 5e and I can at least do better than that.

Judging by this thread, no you can't.

[Leress]

Mist, stop throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Also why 21 levels?

[Mistborn]

Mist, stop throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Also why 21 levels?

Why any specific number of levels? Breaking things down into one small tier and three big ones seemed functional and elegant to me when I came up with the idea at the time.

Levels 1-3 got special attention because I wanted to make them not suck without pulling the 4rry "heroic from day 1" cop out. Like the things that characters in D&D get up to at those levels are really hard to sell as heroes of legend, so I decided not to try and just take what's there and polish it.

The other tiers being 6 levels each is pretty much arbitrary. Like Heroic and Paragon really just need some spells to be moved around in order to work as distinct tiers. Epic is another story but basically everything that is both epic and actually functional can be fit between levels 16-21. Balors and shit are already end bosses. You don't really need to layer anything on top of them except possibly a few unique Demon lords, Gods and whatnot.

[Leress]

So why not 5/5/5/5 then?

[Mistborn]

So why not 5/5/5/5 then?

Would you want to play levels 1-3 of 3e for 2 additional levels? Like it could be done but it involves tweaking the math and a lot of effort that I don't think is actually worth it.

Like Basic, Heroic, and Paragon are partly defined by how your character interacts with the standard humanoid mook like say an Orc. In Basic an Orc is a threat you take seriously. Through heroic Orcs show up in increasingly large numbers in order to remain threats. Paragon (level 10) is the point where no number of Orcs is an actual challenge.

4 and 10 are pretty much where those break points exist in the d20 system already. What I'm doing is basically housekeeping.

[erik]

Why any specific number? Because people like round numbers. Same tier sizes because people like patterns and consistency. Look at how many people are objecting to or questioning your irregular level partition. It's as elegant as a fart.

Would I play 2 more levels of 1-3? Yes because they are 4 and 5, right in the sweet spot.

If doing 3e tiers I like chopping by 4/4/4/4/4 since BAB breaks come in 4 level chunks (Good =4 Mediocre =3 Bad =2) and you get 2 new spell levels each tier. That's closer to elegant. More than 4 levels in a tier seems like too much granularity.

But yeah I believe that pathfailure looks a resounding success compared to whatever this is, and I suspect even 5e would still edge it out if completed.

[Mistborn]

If doing 3e tiers I like chopping by 4/4/4/4/4 since BAB breaks come in 4 level chunks (Good =4 Mediocre =3 Bad =2) and you get 2 new spell levels each tier. That's closer to elegant. More than 4 levels in a tier seems like too much granularity.

Fine then. Enough people have complained about the 3/6/6/6 scheme that I'm dropping it, Tiers are now 4/4/4/4/4 because round numbers apparently.

The reason I wanted to end basic early is that just like none of the Paragon classes were allowed to be mundanes none of the basic classes where going to be casters. Which is why the magic attuned feat was written in the first place, but I guess it should tide dedicated caster players over another level.
So
1-4 tier 1 (Basic)
5-8 tier 2 (Heroic)
9-12 tier 3 (????)
13-16 tier 4 (????)
17-20 tier 5 (epic)

Tier 3 or 4 is Paragon but whichever one isn't called Paragon needs a new name. Any suggestions?

[Schleiermacher]

9-12 Paragon, 13-16 Legendary.

But really, I question whether there is conceptual need/room for 5 tiers - Basic/Heroic/Paragon/Epic is clear, but when you add a 5th one it seems like you're left having to stretch/split what used to be one tier to cover 2, whether the overlap happens between Heroic/Paragon, Paragon/Legendary or Legendary/Epic you're not really adding anything to the play space.

For that reason I thought your 3/6/6/6 setup was fine as it was.

[erik]

Novice Adventurer Legendary Epic Immortal

I don't like heroic because they all should be heroic.

Edit: to demonstrate granularity for tiers... and the scale of threats that they counter.

Neighborhood heroes (serial killer cult, wandering monster, vampire)
City heroes (assassin guild, really big wandering monster, vampire lord and spawn)
National heroes (wars, monsters that can level multiple cities, widespread plagues and disasters, undead kingdom horde)
International heroes (existential threats, world wars, invasions from other dimensions)
Interdimensional heroes (god stuff)

[deaddmwalking]

Because there are people in the world who are playing Pathfailure and 5e and I can at least do better than that.

No, you can't.

Or at least, not going the way you're going. Which is fine if what you want is '3.x Lord Mistborn edition'. But what you're saying is that you want to make a fan edition that's better than Pathfinder or 5th edition D&D. If that's what you want, then what you need is to consider why some things are better than others.

The reason Pathfinder isn't better then 3.x is because they refused to accept criticism or analysis during the design process. They still won't accept that type of feedback. They're not interested in improving the game. And that's a shame. So here we are at the beginning of your design phase and you're esentially claiming that your vision is perfect and that you will bring out the 'one, true version of D&D' that will unite all the wayward players in the world regardless of feedback to the contrary and...it...won't...work.

I'm not trying to convince you not to go through with your project. Making something is good, even if it isn't really what you intended. Like the ashtray that I made for my mother in 2nd grade even though she didn't smoke and it mostly looked like an indistinct blob of fired clay. But if you're making a game for anyone other than your mother or yourself, you might want to try to hold yourself to a higher standard and actually consider feedback.

So let me try again...

There are known issues with 3.x. You've at least identified that casters are essentially untethered at higher levels and you intend to reign them in with spell spheres. I can get behind that. What other problems with 3.x are you trying to fix? Some issues are 'hard-coded' into the system so you're best off starting from scratch but using the parts you like as a guide.

Because there are people in the world who are playing Pathfailure and 5e and I can at least do better than that.

No, you can't.

Or at least, not going the way you're going. Which is fine if what you want is '3.x Lord Mistborn edition'. But what you're saying is that you want to make a fan edition that's better than Pathfinder or 5th edition D&D. If that's what you want, then what you need is to consider why some things are better than others.

The reason Pathfinder isn't better then 3.x is because they refused to accept criticism or analysis during the design process. They still won't accept that type of feedback. They're not interested in improving the game. And that's a shame. So here we are at the beginning of your design phase and you're esentially claiming that your vision is perfect and that you will bring out the 'one, true version of D&D' that will unite all the wayward players in the world regardless of feedback to the contrary and...it...won't...work.

I'm not trying to convince you not to go through with your project. Making something is good, even if it isn't really what you intended. Like the ashtray that I made for my mother in 2nd grade even though she didn't smoke and it mostly looked like an indistinct blob of fired clay. But if you're making a game for anyone other than your mother or yourself, you might want to try to hold yourself to a higher standard and actually consider feedback.

The fact that you've given up on 3/6/6/6 in favor of 4/4/4/4/4 is something, but what is it? The fact that you have names for your tiers, isn't, in itself, meaningful. What is a 'heroic' spell? What is a 'lengendary' spell?

If you really want to make a game that people will play instead of Pathfinder or 5e (and I can assure you they don't play them because they think they're the best, but instead because they're the best supported meaning it's relatively easy to get 4-6 people all on the same page) you need to carefully consider each aspect of the game and decide why you're keeping it. You have a lot of unconscious bias and you're not aware of it - but you keep saying 'I'm doing it this way because duh' and everyone else is saying that your solution is not the only one and probably not the best one.

So here's a shot at helping you.

You've decided that there are distinct tiers. Tier 1 Level 1 is the level in which a teenager or young adult can swing a sword as a legitimate threat and you fight wolves and stuff. We typically expect that you'll fight Tier 1 monsters in Tier 1. There are threats that are below Tier 1. To be a significant challenge you fight swarms of Tier 0 creatures in Tier 1.

If you are Tier 2, you mostly fight Tier 2 threats. If you fight a Tier 1 threat, it is usually a squad.

If you are Tier 3, you mostly fight Tier 3 threats. If you fight a Tier 2 threat, it is usually a horde.

Now, since the PCs are effectively a squad, they can handle Tier 2 threats at Tier 1 (basically boss fights) but it's going to be challenging. Fighting a Tier 3 threat at Tier 2 is probably even harder - the power curve is not strictly linear. They're going to gather armies to fight Tier 3 threats at Tier 2.

That implies that we're going to have a robust mass combat rule where you can take individuals and turn them into swarms, squads, and hordes. It also implies that something significant changes when you cross a tier, and I don't mean a +1 BAB.

Tier 2 has to have area attacks built in. You can't kill individual mooks as though they have significance at this level. This leads to a pretty major design decision...

When you're 'up a tier' on an opponent, how do you represent clearly outclassing them? You could potentially do it by granting 'extra actions'. For example, when the PCs are Tier 2, they take a turn every round. Tier 1 opponents just don't react as quickly; they take 1 action every other turn.

You could also just have a static +6/-6 in some way when you're attacking an opponent of a lower tier. Ie, their typical AC is 18; if you're Tier 2 you get to subtract 6 from their effective AC making it a 12. Or vice versa, you simply add +6 to all of your defenses. If a Tier 1 threat casts a spell on a tier 2 enemy, the tier 2 enemy makes a save at +6.

In these cases, tier becomes a frame of reference. As you fight opponents within your frame, it doesn't change how the game functions at all. Only when you start fighting opponents in a different tier do these special rules apply; and if most fights occur within your Tier it doesn't have to happen a lot. In any case, it would make it clear that Tiers matter.

If you instead persist that a +1 BAB puts you in a whole new category, you're going to definitely still have the 'Fighters can't have nice things'.

Considering your disdain for 'basic' tier, you might start by balancing things for 'paragon' or 'legendary' tier. Wherever you expect the game to spend the most time is the place to spend most of your design work. 3.x works well from Lvl 1-7 and is best from 3-7; some games work until about 12th level. It's clear that 'high level play' was an afterthought, and it shows. If you want high level play baked into your game, start there. Once you have a good ruleset for high level play, you'll probably find it surprisingly easy to work backward to 'basic'. In fact, basic is almost the worst place to start because you already know what it looks like - it's largely historical gaming. Or at least, it is if you don't think about how high level effects 'filter down' to lower levels.

If you want a game about Super Saiyans, you start with Super Saiyans; you can always add human-power monks and a path to get to Super Saiyans. If you start with human-power monks and dont't have a clear direction, you're going to end with Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it isn't necessarily what you're aiming for either.

Final thought - if you keep referring to 3.x as a baseline but then use terminology that isn't supported in 3.x (like combat advantage) it's not going to be clear what you mean. Even if you mean in the Tome sense, you have enough individual expectations creeping in that it certainly isn't clear what you mean.

[Mistborn]

Novice Adventurer Legendary Epic Immortal

See this is why this thread exists. That's better than anything I'd come up with.

So yeah these are the current Novice classes that are planed out. The idea behind them is they're less jobs and more like backstory and at early levels they're partially balanced around their starting equipment. The firmly establish where the PCs come from and how the fit into the world. The idea is that whichever Adventure class you end up taking would define how you've risen above the common people and become a serious badass.

Current Novice classes (in Development)

Aristocrat. You came from a noble/high-class background, that might be firmly in you background because your family was eaten by owlbears or something. The point is you've got a lot of nice stuff some weapon training and good social skills.

Barbarian (name not final) You grew up outside civilization. You know how to use weapons because you learned how to hunt, you also have serious wilderness survival skills and know your way around animals.

Expert. Once of the classes that exists so that aspiring spell casters feel better about Novice tier you get a bunch of bonus skill points to spend on whatever you want and some abilities that let you use your Int score in combat.

The Fool/The Knave. You're the archetypal farmboy hero. You get some social skills, minimal gear, a bunch of luck rerolls, and a magic item. Maybe you've got some kind of destiny, maybe you're just a luck asshole only time will tell

Mystic. another make mental stat characters feel better about novice tier class. You're more in tune with the would around you than most. Perception/Sense motive bot with some quasi mystical ablites that let you use wis or cha in combat.

Scholar. You read the book 101 weird way to (ab)use knowledge skills, also you can make alchemical items.

Soldier. You come from some kind of military background and have extensive training in weapons and armor. Also you get some other skills but what those are is up to you.

Thief. You're good at getting places you aren't wanted, taking things that don't belong to you and knifing people in the back.

@deaddmwalking. Basically the core idea of this projects is that there is the seed of a coherent and balanced game buried in 3.5e and that's the game engine I'm most comfortable working in. Building a game engine from scratch is a far more difficult project then just writing a bunch of classes, monsters, and spells.

For instance the new casting classes are designed to be a lot more like the Beguiler or Dread Necromancer. The idea behind spherecasting as a mechanic is to make casters draw from a more limited pool of spells and thus have a much more coherent identity.

Bob the Wizard who uses a grab bag of the best spells that fvcking kill people is less interesting a character than Bob of the Uttercold who casts from the Cold, Void, and Necromancy spheres. The hope is that the number of spells that see actually use goes up when people pick them in bundles instead of individually.

[Mistborn]

To but things in a more coherent way Castles and Cocks is not about trying to transcend the limitations of the d20 system/3e D&D mechanics. Rather Castles and Cocks is an attempt to produce the best possible game that can exist within those parameters.

Fundamentally to that is the "Classic D&D story". The PC adventuring party starts out fighting threats to their village and/or delving into forgotten cavers in search of loot. Then they fight an increasingly absurd monsters for increasingly high stakes. They become increasingly powerful until they're ready to take on the gods/demon lords.

There's really few character concepts that can't fit inside that framework. At least so long as you realize that many character concepts have strict level limits.

[deaddmwalking]

Sure - but you still haven't addressed the fundamental question of how you're balancing the game around Bob of the Uttercold.

This is partly because you haven't described what people do in each tier of adventure.

How does Legendary Bob of the Uttercold adventure in the City of Brass?

[Lokey]

He doesn't. He binds the ridiculously weak things that have wish there and breaks the game at level 11 or earlier. Nuke it from orbit

Not sure how to easily state the main problem of dnd3.x in the 2 minutes I can allow my self to post in this train wreck. Yes, it's well known and has a crap load of ready to go material. The problem is that much of that material is poorly thought out and even when it works in a very limited context it can still accidentally break, let alone when players start to combine things even within the same book that produce ridiculous results.