PR's D&D Revision (Sorry for the Re-Post)

[Psychic Robot]

I'm very anxious to get opinions regarding my work so far. Again, my apologies for the re-post, but I'm hoping I'll get a few more comments in this section (even though it's technically inappropriate, though I figure with all the TNE threads, it's not such a horrible breach of protocol).

This is the full file.
Chapter 1: Creating a Character
Chapter 2: Talents
Chapter 3: Feats
Chapter 4: Magic Overview
Chapter 5: Spell Descriptions
Chapter 6: Skills
Chapter 7: Skills
Chapter 8: Equipment
Chapter 9: Rituals Overview
Chapter 10: Ritual Descriptions
Chapter 11: Sidekicks (Familiars, Animal Companions, Cohorts)

Now that I've got the majority of the work done, I'm prepared to show it to people to see if I'm on the right track.

A couple of fair warnings:

1. The races aren't at all balanced. I need suggestions on how to do that. I want them to be about the half-dragon's power level.

2. I tried to keep the save-or-loses from being total save-or-loses, but I know that I've missed some of them. Please give suggestions.

3. Disease/poison rules are not worked out. I have ideas, but there's nothing concrete yet. That means the spells that give diseases and poisons are probably going to be changed.

4. I have not done magic items yet. I am going to do them, but my intent is to balance the system around 0 magic items.

5. The PDF isn't formatted for things like online viewing. My apologies in advance.

6. Here are a list of the "big changes" to the system:

1. Classes advance according to one table, accumulating feats, talents, and skills as they progress.

Things are…very different. Everyone gets bonuses to certain things—AC, attack rolls, damage rolls, and the like. These bonuses improve by +1 for every character level that you have.

2. Characters use Defenses rather than saves—your base Defenses are all 10, and they get bonuses and penalties based on your stats and feats. Effects that would normally require saving throws are rolled similarly to attacks. See the class section for how Defenses advance.

Reflex Defense takes the place of Armor Class.

Magic checks are used by spellcasters to “attack” the Defenses of their opponents. Defense checks, on the other hand, are rolled as an attack against the Defenses. They usually get a bonus, so something that receives a +5 Reflex Defense check is really an attack roll against an individual’s Reflex Defense with a +5 bonus. (“Defense check” is just shorthand for “check against the target’s Defense.”)

As a quick conversion guideline: subtract 7 from a save DC. What you’re left with is the bonus you’ll use to “attack” an enemy’s Defenses.

3. Encounter powers: they exist. For purposes of using them outside of encounters, assume that all your uses “recharge” every ten minutes.

4. Starting hit points: You get a lot of them. They are equal to your Constitution score + your (maximized) starting HD + your Constitution modifier. (Yes, you technically get goodies from your Con score twice. This is because I know that I’m likely to accidentally add a character’s Con modifier an extra time when calculating his HP, so I might as well make it a part of the rules.)

Characters have a “death threshold” equal to 10 + their Constitution scores. You can have negative hit points equal to your death threshold before kicking the bucket.

Also, all HD are maximized. Since damage has been increased overall, this (hopefully) works out well.

Environmental damage has been increased to 1d10 points of damage for every 1d6 that was originally rolled.

5. Armor and natural armor provide damage reduction, not AC. The damage reduction is roughly 1 DR/— for every two points of AC the armor/natural armor normally provides. DR from natural armor and armor stack.

Damage reduction applies against all forms of physical damage, including falling and crushing damage.

6. Changes to the way modifiers work:

All -4/+4 modifiers have been changed to -5/+5 for the sake of “it’s easier to counter by fives than it is to count by fours.”

There is no such thing as miss chance. That is annoying. Anything that grants your enemies a 20% miss chance now gives them a -2 penalty on attacks. Anything that grants your enemies a 50% miss chance now gives them a -5 penalty on attacks.

7. The spell system has been completely overhauled. It now uses a spellpoint system similar to the 3.5 psionics system. If there’s anything in these rules that’s not covered, refer to the XPH for details.

And there are rituals. Kind of like in 4e, but without the fail.

8. Skills have been merged and overhauled. Writing it here would take up too much room.

Use Rope doesn’t exist, as it was a dumb skill. Instead, tying someone up is automatic, and the rules are listed under grappling.

9. More combat options for melee characters. You get to do less boring things now!

Dexterity gives a bonus to damage on ranged attacks. And you can use a swift and immediate action in the same round.

Oh, snap, I almost forgot: combat advantage. I stole it from 4e and it exists. Read the rules on it—but as a quick conversion guide, anything that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus causes you to grant combat advantage.

10. Experience points have been divided by 10. It’s easier that way.

11. Magic items have been completely changed. You’ll need to read the magic items section. Also, you don’t have to pay XP when creating magic items.

12. Disease and poison rules are less of a hassle. I think.

13. Spell resistance does not exist. Neither does energy resistance—at least, not in the traditional sense. There’s no more “cold resist 5” and “fire resist 10.” If you’re resistant to energy, you take half damage from it. That’s all. That means that lots of monsters are going to lose their resistances.

14. Weapons are different. All weapons auto-crit on a natural 20, and all the dice you rolled for the attack are maximized, not multiplied. (No more x4 crits, thank God.)

Projectile weapons give you your Dexterity modifier to damage rolls with them.

15. For magic checks and attacks, a 1 is an automatic miss while a 20 is an automatic success.

16. There’s a condition track! Huzzah. If you’ve got under ¾ your hit points, you take a -1 penalty on things. If you’ve got under a ½ your hit points, you take a -3 penalty on things. If you’ve got under ¼ of your hit points, you take a -5 penalty on things.

(That wasn’t much of a track, I know.)

17. Feats have been vastly overhauled. Many have been merged to reduce their suckitude. Some feats have become talents.

And Combat Reflexes no longer exists—you can make a number of attacks of opportunity in a round equal to 1 + your Dexterity bonus.

I fully expect to have fucked up royally in some parts. Please be sure to tell me where I have so that I can fix it. And don't forget spelling or grammatical errors. I hate those.

[Username17]

Since it's not numerically compatible, I assume that you intend to rewrite all the monsters, right?

-Username17

[Psychic Robot]

Of course. I just want to make sure that the foundations are stable first.

[rapa-nui]

I will read through it. It's pretty hard though because I end up laughing like every 2 minutes.

"729d20+443: Seven-hundred twenty-nine twenty-sided dice plus four-hundred forty-three, generating a big number."

That was ace.

Anyhow, from the first 5 pages, I can already tell you're on the right track to staying on the RNG, so let's see if I can keep track of the 3e and 4e hodgepodge. Since you're adding Combat Advantage, are you removing flat-footed? I assume so...


EDIT:

"Step 8: Meet Your Friends in a Tavern
Pretty much every D&D game starts in a tavern. It’s time for your new adventurer to meet up with his buddies so you can save the world (or do whatever it is you’re going to do in your campaign)."

More hilarity.

EDIT #2:

"Racisms"

I'm not going to get any sleep am I?

[rapa-nui]

The value for the Expert's attack bonus does not match between the table (+5) and the class description (+3).

[Psychic Robot]

Thank you. I'll go about fixing that.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Why should high-Dex characters be encouraged to use bows over thrown daggers?

Why spell points?

[Psychic Robot]

1. What would you suggest changing? My thinking was that thrown weapons require more force from the wielder himself while other ranged weapons do not (consider throwing a rock and using a catapult). Thus, to do damage with the thrown weapon, the wielder's Strength would have to be fairly high. (Particularly given that axes aren't exactly precision weaponry.) However, when using something like a crossbow, it's going to matter less how hard your crossbow shoots--not that it's not important, mind you--but it's going to matter more how accurate your shot is.

Also, Weapon Finesse can be used to replace Strength with Dexterity for damage.

2. I prefer that system. It gives more control to the players.

[Username17]

Considering that what you are doing is not numerically compatible with D&D, I a unclear as to why you are keeping many of the sacred cows.

For starters: 3e style Ability Increases. It pushes people off the RNG, and doesn't really do anything positive for the game.

And let's not forget the interaction of point buy with racial ability mods. Races with positive ability score adjustments have "more points" to spend because the higher ability scores cost more and thus the points they save purchase more than 2 points elsewhere. Getting +2 to one stat and -2 to another stat is a strict improvement even if you want to raise bother stats.

Experts blow. There is seriously no reason for them to exist, because they aren't conceptually different from warriors. But beyond that, the only thing they actually get for having worse combat numbers is that they have more skills and therefore qualify for more talents. But they don't actually get more talents. Qualifying for talents that you don't actually have is worthless.

---

On another note, the talents you have are nothing like balanced, but I assume you knew that. But beyond that, your nomenclature is pretty confused at times. I mean seriously, being a master poisoner apparently gives the target a bonus to their Defense check? Don't you mean that it gives you a bonus to overcome their defense check? I mean, it's a +1 bonus, so I would be personally insulted to have to remember to add it in regardless, but "your poisons get a +1 bonus on their Defense checks" isn't recognizable as English based on what I think you meant.

-Username17

[Psychic Robot]

Defense checks refer to checks made against their target's Defenses, so you would add the +1 bonus when you're rolling against the target's Fortitude Defense. Yes, it's not really great, but I figured that I'd throw in a small bonus to someone bothering to take the talent.

What class abilities would you suggest that I give to experts? I'm loathe to merge the class with the warrior; I'd rather make it stand out more.

Also, I am fully aware that the talents aren't balanced, but I specifically pointed this out in the text because I'm not sure how to give people interesting options without

a) making them spend too many talents on the things (for instance, if I split the paladin Divine Power talent up into three different talents),

b) making them something mandatory (some players might not want to fuss with things like Combat Brute or Swordsage).

I figured that it would be best to give the players who want "active" abilities the opportunity to take them, while players who want "passive" abilities can take those.

[Username17]

Defense checks refer to checks made against their target's Defenses

No. That is unacceptably counter-intuitive bullshit. You are not allowed to call an attack roll a defense check under any circumstances. Fuck you very much.

What class abilities would you suggest that I give to experts?

It's a non-viable concept. You've got "guy who does things magically" and then you've got another guy who also does things non-magically but isn't as good in combat. That's lame. There's no difference between these guys conceptually except that one is better in combat.

Also, I am fully aware that the talents aren't balanced, but I specifically pointed this out in the text because I'm not sure how to give people interesting options without

I can't even discuss power levels with you on the grounds that I haven't seen your enemies and thus I have no way to gauge how much is too much or too little. But there seems to be a fundamental problem you have: you don't seem to have any idea of what people can do either.

Let's start with Assassin talents because they are alphabetically first. At 11th level you get the ability to teleport 60 feet. And I have to ask: So? It's a standard action, so it's not really good for anything in combat. So we compare it to the Dimension Door it is replacing: that costs just 10 spell points (still no idea why you decided to go with giant unwieldy totals of spell points), and goes over three times as far and takes compatriots. Except that for 16 spell points you can do this as a swift action, thereby actually making any god damned difference in combat. I'm just totally flabergasted. My reaction on reading that is seriously "That's it? I can walk through walls in non-combat time?"

And then I notice that Sneak Attack is completely fucked. That is, if you do it at all, it uses up all of your talents ever. And since you can't do any of the things that made sneak attack good in 3e, you probably won't even bother.

But really, I will say this once and hope it gets through: under no circumstances should you be spending supposedly limited optional resources just to keep from falling behind on your shtick. The thing where you have to keep investing Talents into Sneak Attack is dreadful game design, that shit is not acceptable. Imagine for the moment that some asshole decides to split his talents up - now he won't have a level appropriate sneak attack. He just drove off the RNG cliff and we don't care what he says or thinks.

-Username17

[CatharzGodfoot]

1. What would you suggest changing? My thinking was that thrown weapons require more force from the wielder himself while other ranged weapons do not (consider throwing a rock and using a catapult). Thus, to do damage with the thrown weapon, the wielder's Strength would have to be fairly high. (Particularly given that axes aren't exactly precision weaponry.) However, when using something like a crossbow, it's going to matter less how hard your crossbow shoots--not that it's not important, mind you--but it's going to matter more how accurate your shot is.

Having shot a few bows, I have to say that doing so requires a fair bit of strength. A skilled archer has to be at least as strong as a skilled knife thrower, even when using a composite (with pulleys) bow.

Now, that may be simulationist bullshit, but so is using two different attributes in the first place. Using two attributes to resolve an attack is objectively worse than using only one, because either your attributes are different (so you'd rather use the higher) or the attributes are the same (and you don't care).

I can see a lot of possible paths. One thing you could base it on is weapon type: "light" weapons use dexterity, "heavy" weapons use strength. Then a dagger uses dexterity regardless of whether its thrown. You can make every crossbow a light weapon.
Because bows have a certain advantage (at least in D&D) over thrown or melee weapons, you could put them in a special category (they already are!), and require both strength and dexterity to use effectively.

Alternatively, you could go totally crazy and use dual attributes for everything. Most melee weapons could rely on muscle and coordination, but a few might rely only on coordination and quickness or acuity. Bows could rely on both muscle and acuity. More exotic weapons could rely on more odd attributes.

It seems cruel to open up a 'what do the attributes do' discussion this late in your design process, but that might be unavoidable.

2. I prefer that system. It gives more control to the players.

The system you're currently using looks to be a 'best of all worlds' amalgam. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like you have spells known like a sorcerer, from which you select spells prepared like a shaman. You then use power points to cast them like a psion. I like the first two parts.

How do you balance the cost of casting a 1st-level spell against the cost of casting a 6th level spell? How do you balance the power?

Have you looked into separate 'utility' and 'combat' spell pools?

Defense checks refer to checks made against their target's Defenses

No. That is unacceptably counter-intuitive bullshit. You are not allowed to call an attack roll a defense check under any circumstances. Fuck you very much.

You worded that a bit strongly, but I had the same immediate 'WTF???' reaction as well until I carefully reread the bit on "defense" checks.

[Psychic Robot]

Yes, I'll admit that the wording has troubled me. Shall I simply call them Defense attacks?

It's a non-viable concept. You've got "guy who does things magically" and then you've got another guy who also does things non-magically but isn't as good in combat. That's lame. There's no difference between these guys conceptually except that one is better in combat.

The expert's purpose is that he is competent in combat but he also has more out-of-combat abilities.

Let's start with Assassin talents because they are alphabetically first. At 11th level you get the ability to teleport 60 feet. And I have to ask: So? It's a standard action, so it's not really good for anything in combat. So we compare it to the Dimension Door it is replacing: that costs just 10 spell points (still no idea why you decided to go with giant unwieldy totals of spell points), and goes over three times as far and takes compatriots. Except that for 16 spell points you can do this as a swift action, thereby actually making any god damned difference in combat. I'm just totally flabergasted. My reaction on reading that is seriously "That's it? I can walk through walls in non-combat time?"

Then would you suggest I allow it as a move action?

And then I notice that Sneak Attack is completely fucked. That is, if you do it at all, it uses up all of your talents ever. And since you can't do any of the things that made sneak attack good in 3e, you probably won't even bother.

It takes a total of three talents to get the maximum sneak attack. I don't really think that's too much.

The thing where you have to keep investing Talents into Sneak Attack is dreadful game design, that shit is not acceptable. Imagine for the moment that some asshole decides to split his talents up - now he won't have a level appropriate sneak attack. He just drove off the RNG cliff and we don't care what he says or thinks.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but how does losing sneak attack damage "[drive him] off the RNG cliff"?

Furthermore, what would you suggest in order to keep the efficacy of sneak attack in line with its benefits?

Having shot a few bows, I have to say that doing so requires a fair bit of strength. A skilled archer has to be at least as strong as a skilled knife thrower, even when using a composite (with pulleys) bow.

Now, that may be simulationist bullshit, but so is using two different attributes in the first place. Using two attributes to resolve an attack is objectively worse than using only one, because either your attributes are different (so you'd rather use the higher) or the attributes are the same (and you don't care).

I can see a lot of possible paths. One thing you could base it on is weapon type: "light" weapons use dexterity, "heavy" weapons use strength. Then a dagger uses dexterity regardless of whether its thrown. You can make every crossbow a light weapon.
Because bows have a certain advantage (at least in D&D) over thrown or melee weapons, you could put them in a special category (they already are!), and require both strength and dexterity to use effectively.

Alternatively, you could go totally crazy and use dual attributes for everything. Most melee weapons could rely on muscle and coordination, but a few might rely only on coordination and quickness or acuity. Bows could rely on both muscle and acuity. More exotic weapons could rely on more odd attributes.

It seems cruel to open up a 'what do the attributes do' discussion this late in your design process, but that might be unavoidable.

Attributes are a huge clusterfuck anyhow, but I like the six-stat system. Perhaps thrown weapons could just use Strength for attacks/damage? Or do you think it'd be easier just to use Dexterity?

The system you're currently using looks to be a 'best of all worlds' amalgam. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like you have spells known like a sorcerer, from which you select spells prepared like a shaman. You then use power points to cast them like a psion. I like the first two parts.

Two casting classes.

One is a prepared caster. Clerics pray for their spells (like in 3e), wizards use a spellbook (like in 3e), and warlocks have a spirit-shaman-esque mechanic.

The second is a spontaneous caster, which works like the sorcerer.

How do you balance the cost of casting a 1st-level spell against the cost of casting a 6th level spell? How do you balance the power?

The damage increases roughly at the same rate, but in terms of non-combat powers, I used the guidelines from 3e. This, of course, is probably off with regard to several areas.

Have you looked into separate 'utility' and 'combat' spell pools?

I considered it, but I don't like it. Rituals are largely utility spells, though, so characters who can use them have that option.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Yes, I'll admit that the wording has troubled me. Shall I simply call them Defense attacks?

What attacks do you have that don't target defenses?

Two casting classes.

One is a prepared caster. Clerics pray for their spells (like in 3e), wizards use a spellbook (like in 3e), and warlocks have a spirit-shaman-esque mechanic.

The second is a spontaneous caster, which works like the sorcerer.

I don't get it. What are spellpoints for? Do you have fewer spellpoints than you would need to cast all of the spells you've prepared?

[Psychic Robot]

Huh. I guess that's a good point--when I originally wrote this, I still had separate AC/Reflex Defense, so I suppose it never occurred to me to change it. The problem is finding a good way to say "attack against the target's Fortitude Defense" more quickly, I suppose.

I don't get it. What are spellpoints for? Do you have fewer spellpoints than you would need to cast all of the spells you've prepared?

I'm not sure what you're asking. You use spellpoints to cast spells. Are you asking what my purpose was for using them over traditional Vancian spellcasting? I prefer the spellpoint system because it gives the player more control over his or her own longevity.

To answer your question: spellcasters do have more spellpoints than they would need to cast all their prepared spells.

[Manxome]

Huh. I guess that's a good point--when I originally wrote this, I still had separate AC/Reflex Defense, so I suppose it never occurred to me to change it. The problem is finding a good way to say "attack against the target's Fortitude Defense" more quickly, I suppose.

You should call that a "fort attack."

A) If you choose anything longer, it will get shortened to that in actual use.

B) "Fort" and "attack" are the two pertinent pieces of information from the longer phrase, so you can't make it any shorter than that without removing meaning.

You can make up another term that means "targets fortitude" but which is only one word long, but that will just be one more piece of jargon your players have to memorize, so I don't recommend it. The fact that the word "attack" is right next to it makes it clear enough that you're talking about an attack and not a defense.

[Psychic Robot]

Makes sense. I'll go ahead and do that right now.

Also, as it stands, I realize that armor is not very good. I am looking for suggestions on how to better it.

[Meikle641]

Hmm.... I sorta like what I've seen so far, PR. Defenses, amalgamated skills, and other stuff.

That said, the class setup, talents, and your casting methods are confusing me some. Admittedly, part of that is my not having read them all in-depth yet, but yeah.

Personally, I'm a huge psionics player, so I find it interesting you've chosen to go with a spellpoint system. Now, call me an idiot here, but wouldn't it be easier to simply have readied spells for clerics and wizards? Everyone uses SP, but in return for more spells known they have to pre-allocate SP into whatever the hell they're gonna be casting.

A 3rd party book I bought has something similar for the psi-x version of the wizard (Crystal Psion). Seemed to work. But yeah, I could be messed up here, but it would seem that unifying the casting styles would be the best way to reduce confusion.

Or something. Mainly skimmed so far, so yeah.

[Psychic Robot]

I have always really, really hated that aspect of Vancian casting. While it technically might work out better, it drives me nuts. Also, my prepared casters are pretty much stolen from UA.

[Meikle641]

Oh, I honestly refuse to play Vancian classes when I can help it, but again, a unified magic system is the best bet.

Iffen you want, I can send you a screencap or something on the way the pdf did it.

[Username17]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but how does losing sneak attack damage "[drive him] off the RNG cliff"?

Furthermore, what would you suggest in order to keep the efficacy of sneak attack in line with its benefits?

You are straight up giving people the opportunity to be 3e style multi-casters. Being less than level appropriate at one action in exchange for being able to choose to take another action which is also not level appropriate is - surprise - not level appropriate.

It's the same problem with the spell points. If people have the choice between putting their eggs into a basket until their basket is full of level appropriate actions or dumping their eggs into multiple baskets where none of them provide level appropriate actions then one is right and the other is wrong.

While hit points and damage looks like a separate consideration from a basic d20 roll, it really isn't. There is an expected amount of damage relative to hit points that you're dishing out, and if you aren't doing that much your attacks "don't matter." From what I've seen, you seem to have filler numbers for all your damage totals, and I have no idea how much damage anyone is supposed to be dong under any circumstances. But giving people the "option" of doing less than optimal damage is a bad start towards standardizing that damage.

-Username17

[Draco_Argentum]

"The expert's purpose is that he is competent in combat but he also has more out-of-combat abilities. "

Rephrased, the expert's purpose is to take away non-combat abilities from any other non-magical classes.

[Psychic Robot]

You are straight up giving people the opportunity to be 3e style multi-casters. Being less than level appropriate at one action in exchange for being able to choose to take another action which is also not level appropriate is - surprise - not level appropriate.

It's the same problem with the spell points. If people have the choice between putting their eggs into a basket until their basket is full of level appropriate actions or dumping their eggs into multiple baskets where none of them provide level appropriate actions then one is right and the other is wrong.

While hit points and damage looks like a separate consideration from a basic d20 roll, it really isn't. There is an expected amount of damage relative to hit points that you're dishing out, and if you aren't doing that much your attacks "don't matter." From what I've seen, you seem to have filler numbers for all your damage totals, and I have no idea how much damage anyone is supposed to be dong under any circumstances. But giving people the "option" of doing less than optimal damage is a bad start towards standardizing that damage.

-Username17

So how would you suggest altering sneak attack so that it its benefits don't outweigh its talent cost? Would it be balanced to have it cost a single talent but increase automatically to the equivalent of +10d6 damage?

[Username17]

So how would you suggest altering sneak attack so that it its benefits don't outweigh its talent cost? Would it be balanced to have it cost a single talent but increase automatically to the equivalent of +10d6 damage?

That's not an answerable question, because your "talent costs" aren't consistent in what they bring to the table. I mean seriously, how much extra damage is an Evoker going to do by having Potent Evocations at 20th level? Let's say he drops a 20 spell point Fireball, doing 10d6+50 base damage to every target. Potent Evocations does an additional 20 damage to every target. Assuming that our 20th level Archmage is dumping a Fireball on at least 2 enemies, he just did 40 extra damage for free without worrying about bullshit like range or combat advantage. That's the average damage output of about 11.5 dice. Versus 3 or more opponents, it's of course not even close.

-Username17

[Psychic Robot]

Ah, poopsicles. I was going to change that, actually. Either way, I suppose it's not a huge deal if somebody gets full sneak attack progression for a single talent.