Lago's Kickass D&D-Book Marketing Strategy!

[Mask_De_H]

So Frank, is the concept you posited another one of those things 3e/4e almost got right then managed to fuck up with the status effects? To prevent multiple vertical stacking, you give each negative status effect a specific name and/or prevent more than one version to be on a target like Pokemon. So the Warlock drops a cursed effect which is a negative 2+class level to saves, the Elementalist drops a slow which makes it so the target only gets a move action, and the Paladin has a mark that literally pulls the target towards him.

[Orion]

I see.

So tanking is not interchangeable with controlling, it's interchangeable with CURSING.

[Username17]

Frank, I love the accuracy excess of AC becomes damage mechanic. Would having 9 ability scores help to flesh out characters more?

Not really, no.

Attributes are not completely worthless, but they don't do what people think that they do. Having a Strength of 14 doesn't tell you any more about a character than having the binary FUDGE tag of "strong" and having a Constitution of 17 is so completely metagame that it doesn't tell you anything about the character at all.

WoD (either version) has too many attributes, because there is really nothing that Stamina or Appearance do in any consistent non-metagame fashion. And that is pretty much always going to happen when you have a lot of attributes, because what attributes do is three things:

• "Other Stuff" - there is a limit to how much stuff you are going to write on your character sheet, and there will be occasional actions that your character will want to take that will not clearly line themselves up with any of your character's listed traits. So it is useful to have a couple of numbers on your sheet to "wing it" in various types of actions. For these purposes, attributes are desired to be basically as few in number and as non-overlapping as possible. Because if you have to have a discussion about whether you should be using "Strength" or "Body" to push over the statue, you've basically lost the advantage of even having defined numbers for doing "other stuff."
• Defenses - People are going to be doing different stuff to try to take you out, and they need some kind of number to be rolling against. The more of these that there are, the less difference there is going to be between one and another. You'll note that 4e ended up essentially cutting their attributes in half for this purpose: Charisma and Wisdom are completely interchangeable for purposes of Will Defense.
• Divide Up The Playspace - If different abilities require different attribute arrays to use properly, the attributes are in essence your class system. If you have two high stats out of 6 (like in 4e D&D), then there are in essence 15 subdivisions of characters. If you have 2 high stats from 2 different 3 stat lists out of 9 stats total (like in oWoD), then there are 27 subdivisions of characters. If you could be a Strength/Dexterity of Appearance/Charisma character, there would be 36 subdivisions.

But if you notice, the last one pretty much presupposes that you don't already have a hard class system to divide the playspace up with. The original D&D rules were based on using random stat assignments that basically did not do anything at all except determine which class you could play. In the world of having 13 character classes and numerous subclasses that are in fact going to be expanded to even more classes that players can choose from freely without consulting dice to find out if they are "allowed" - using attributes to divide up the play space is not desirable.

Contrast with a game like Pokemon Skirmish or aWoD, where people don't have a "class" really and the attributes serve real duty carving up the playspace between different characters (Venusaur will use Stomp and Bulbasaur will not).

In short: I genuinely think once you get into having the kinds of free but mandatory choice of class that we're talking about, having more attributes is not just pointless - it's genuinely detrimental. You could get by just fine with 3 or 4 stats. Ref, Fort, Will for example. Or:

So tanking is not interchangeable with controlling, it's interchangeable with CURSING.

Or HEALING, depending on how you look at it. But basically what you want is for characters to be highly encouraged to boost defenses and penalize enemy attacks rather than just doing one of those things twice. Because otherwise tactics become really dull.

-Username17

[Mask_De_H]

So, attributes and basic chargen:

Strength, Dexterity, Willpower, Intelligence. They work as the Four Stat System: Strength is physical damage/physical soak, Dex is physical accuracy/AC, Willpower is mental damage/mental soak, Intelligence is mental accuracy/Will save.

A starting character gets 8 points to divvy up between the four stats, with no more than 4 going to one stat. Like the Four Stat System, we can also have the "your lowest stat must be no lower than two points behind your highest stat" rule. Characters get +1 to a stat of their choice every 2 levels and a +1 to every stat on tier advancement.

Strength skills are Survival and Warcraft (the ability to "feel" the general flow of battle/the enemy's power and tactics/yer mum)
Dexterity skills are Stealth and Acrobatics (Tumble, Jump, Balance et. al.)
Willpower skills are Concentration and Presence (Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate)
Intelligence skills are Perception and Knowledge

Everyone gets Craft Magic whatever thanks to the Chakra system, so the ability to make mundane shit can be gained through feats or as a narrative convenience. The craft skills would have to be defined as for the sake of the narrative and not for gaining crazy vertical power/stupid amounts of money.

You get your racial ability, but it doesn't add to your attribute scores. It gives you an ability that offers a neat skill, on par with a feat or something.

Elf: Inspiration - If you successfully hit an enemy with a power, your allies get a (non-stacking) bonus until your next turn.
Hobgoblin: Surety - A Hob may spend an action/go down ticks in the initiative to auto-succeed on his next action. Usable X times a session.
Orc: Hotblood - An Orc may take a negative penalty to their defenses to gain an equal bonus to his attacks for [character level] rounds. Toggle
Goblin: Inconspicuous - A Goblin blends in with the chaos. Pseudo-invisibility, have to make Perception checks to notice/remember the character. Toggle.
Drow: Scoundrel - If you successfully hit an enemy with a power, their allies get a (non-stacking) penalty until your next turn.
Dwarf: Obstinacy - A Dwarf may force an action directed at him to auto-fail or delay the effects of it for [character level] rounds. Usable X times a session
Kobold: Sleight - A Kobold may swap out a power he just used for one that he has of equal or lesser tier, using the same roll (if necessary). Usable X times a session.
Warforged: Ceaseless - A Warforged may take an extra action before he would die/critically fail a task, after which the effect takes hold. Usable X times a session. (Explanation: If the Warforged gets tagged with a Charm/Death effect/gets his final skill challenge strike, he can make one last action before he's Charmed/Killed/Epic Fails).
Gnome: Creativity - A Gnome may swap out one tag on a power he's used for another one of the same class. Usable X times a session. (Explanation: He could change a [Fire] damage move into a [Cold] damage move, or a Target: Single to a Target: All)
Human: Versatility - A Human may choose to use any racial bonus. He can only use a bonus once. Usable X times a session.
Tiefling: Affront - If a Tiefling is targeted by a detrimental effect, she may elect to act immediately before the target's action. Usable X times a session.
Halfling: Cunning - A Halfling can distract and confuse people. Targets have to make Presence check to recognize what the halfling just did. Toggle. (Explanation: some kind of epic bluff ability, so the Halfling can get away with stabbing a dude in the face or telling an obvious lie without the target realizing it.)
Gith: Focus - A Gith may elect to take a penalty to her attacks to gain an equal bonus to her defenses for [character level] rounds. Toggle.

EDIT: I'm compiling stuff Here.

[Mask_De_H]

Basic Outline of Class Paths:

So, each Class gets two main paths level 1, and another at level 6. They scale like Tome feats, I assume in both damage and options, and have 4 levels.

Bard:
Performance Path
- Inspiring
- Technical
- Passionate

Path of Tales
- Bawdy
- Epic
- Moral

[A] Legends Path
- Legend of Steel
- Legend of Courage
- Legend of Cunning

Hero:
Path of Fighting
- Strength
- Speed
- Skill

Path of Protection
- Iron Body
- Stalwart Defense
- Baffling Entrapment

[A] Path of Mastery
- Enlightenment
- Weaponmaster
- Slayer of Men

Ranger:
Path of the Avenger
- Shrike
- Mongoose
- Spider

Path of Nature
- Skies
- Lands
- Seas

[A] Path of Gaia
- Stormbringer
- Summerborne
- Winterborne

Druid:
Path of Empathy
- It's Cold Outside
- It's Hot Outside
- It's A Jungle Out There

Path of Animal Ken
- Murder of Crows
- Da Bear
- Wolfpack

[A] Path of Natural Mystery
- Cockatrice
- Shambling Mound
- Manticore

and so on and so forth. I may want to put this in IMOI.

[Orca]

A starting character gets 10 points to divvy up between the four stats, with no more than 4 going to one stat. Like the Four Stat System, we can also have the "your lowest stat must be no lower than two points behind your highest stat" rule.

Dunno where the 4 stat system is, or if this has been covered already - this gives exactly 3 possible stat distributions: (4,2,2,2) (3,3,2,2) or (3,3,3,1). Intended?

[Mask_De_H]

A starting character gets 10 points to divvy up between the four stats, with no more than 4 going to one stat. Like the Four Stat System, we can also have the "your lowest stat must be no lower than two points behind your highest stat" rule.

Dunno where the 4 stat system is, or if this has been covered already - this gives exactly 3 possible stat distributions: (4,2,2,2) (3,3,2,2) or (3,3,3,1). Intended?

Er, no, that wasn't intended. That was math fail.

The Four Stat System is one of Frank's older systems, SAME. It shows up on a TGD search under "Four Stat System". It has the clause that the difference between the lowest and highest stats can't be greater than 2, to keep the RNG tightly on the rails. This may or may not be necessary in the 5th edition system, which is why I added the rider. With it, the maximum deviation is 2, but there's not a very wide spread of numbers. I'd rather have the maximum derivation of +/- 4 and allow for free distribution now that I see the spread.

[Orion]

Frank: I have a question about the Idea of the "Subclass".

The idea is that a Primary Class gives you something like 3 "path" selections, each of which is a progression of several abilities across the levels. The Subclass gives you access to a specific path from the class it's based on, scaling at the same rate.

Will you attempt to balance ever class combination, or is that a lost cause? because it seems like it to me.

Say you make the "Hero" subclass just a series of weapon attacks, so that you can make healer-swordsman, summoner-swordsman, and cursing swordsman. The Hero subclass is going to do little or nothing for a Warlock, right? He can already shoot fire!

But say you instead make the Hero subclass a series of "leadership"-themed buffs and social abilities, so that you can have priest-kings, wizard-kings, and necromancer-kings. That's going to be a lot better on a Warlock than it is on an Assassin.

[IGTN]

Or the subclass can give a choice of abilities, so that there's at least one that synergizes with every main class. It doesn't matter if the choice isn't really a choice for any given class, as long as it makes the subclass viable overall.

[Orion]

if you have each controller able to negate half the incoming actions, and it was originally going to take 3 rounds to lose, the first slow provides 3 extra rounds (3 -> 6), and the second slow would provide six extra rounds (6 -> 12).
-Username17

But Frank, this is true of all kinds of penalties. If you replaced them with an Shadowcaster Blinding everyone (50% miss) and a Warlock Weakened them (half damage) you would see the same increasing returns. But, both would presumably be "Cursing" role characters, so your "cursing" role self-stacks in the same way you say roles shouldn't.

(incidentally measuring things in absolute turns is kinda shady. Remember that the first time you replace one of 4 heroes with a time mage, your dps declines by 25%, but the second time it declines by 33%) Of course, it's not surprising that your example "slow"-based controller works like a curser, because you've just thrown at an example controller whose schtick is to throw down keyworded debuffs on enemies, which is exactly what one would expect a curser to do. That's why I tried to distinguish battlefield control from debuffs, not "control" in general.

Slow, in this abstract example, is doing nothing but directly halving enemy DPS, which makes it in effect *exactly like* a damage debuff. A fire-and-forget ability that makes enemies mathematically less effective at what they do. Contrast Stinking Cloud, the staple control ability, which does things like split up groups, all-or-nothing negate enemy effectiveness, and depend on the battlefield's topology. Unlike Slow as you've portrayed it, Web has three features that feel iconically "control" to me.

--It requires you to plan ahead: know how many enemies to fight at a time, which terrain to leave open
--It can backfire; the Cloud has friendly fire, unlike 3.5 Slow. You might close off a space you wanted later,
--It requires a change in PC tactics. The way you fight gassed creatures is very *different* from normal. You can sneak attack them as they emerge, bull rush them into it, lob explosives into the cloud, and so on.

Without at least two of these features, I have a hard time calling something *battlefield control*. Of course, a slow spell theoretically could work as a control ability. If the point of slow was not a damage debuff so your hero could trade blows with the ogre, but a set-up for some throwing-knife kiting, it would feel like "control."

Thus, if I were going to divide roles and make them feel different, I would do so by making each role care about a different section of the rulebook.

Tanks -- care about AoOs, reach, grappling, and the like
Controllers -- care about terrain types, movement speeds, and attack ranges
DPSers -- care about damage types and resistances, enemy perception abilities
Cursers -- care about lists of status effects, how bell curves work

[Username17]

Strength, Dexterity, Willpower, Intelligence. They work as the Four Stat System: Strength is physical damage/physical soak, Dex is physical accuracy/AC, Willpower is mental damage/mental soak, Intelligence is mental accuracy/Will save.

Having attributes be useful or necessary for things like attacks or major character abilities is basically bad in a game with rigidly defined classes. The basic problem is quite apparent in 4e: namely that you aren't going to multiclass Wizard and Rogue. Like, at all. In short, there isn't any real difference between attribute arrays that are "better" for a build and attribute arrays that are "required" for the build. And that means that what attribute arrays that "add" to powers do is to set a restricted subset of characters that are level appropriate and consign all other possible builds to be variously weaker than that.

And that's fine if that's your only playspace division. Basically what you're doing is to create defacto character classes based on the available stat arrays, and then you're telling people that they can play across class, but they get penalized for it. There might even be synergies that can be found such that players with a lot of system mastery can find new viable classes that you hadn't planned. But if you already have a limited set of classes, such a division is just consigning some of the explicit options in the game to being traps. You're saying that Necromancer subs Artificer well because both are Intelligence classes; but Warlock can't sub Ranger well because Warlock is a Will class and Ranger is a Strength class.

In the basic book you have access to 13 base classes and after that 12 subclass options. That's 156 characters that are explicitly available. But if you make it so that only certain combos go together because of syngeristic attribute arrays, you would be eliminating fully 3/4 of those options as being "level appropriate". And while people could doubtless find some synergy to save a few of the combos, the initial back of the envelope calculation that 117 of those class combinations would be considered "worthless" leaving a playspace of only 39 seems pretty reasonable.

In short, while there can be something in there about getting an Int bonus for being an Artificer (thus making it so that Artificers always have at least a "pretty good" Perception defense), or tying some Artificer bonus skills to Int (so that Artificers are highly encouraged to have a good Perception defense), you can't really have meaty class features of the Artificer depend on any way on having any particular investment into Int. Because if you did, you wouldn't be able to sub Warlock or Ranger off an Artificer chassis.

From the standpoint of 4e Design, powers like Holy Strike and Shielding Smite should not require, add, or even mention your attributes in any way. Holy Smite has a level appropriate attack and damage bonus if and only if you are Strength/Wisdom like a Tron Paladin "should be." But there's no flavor or interest to that, it should just tell you what the level appropriate bonuses are and give them to you. Similarly, Fearsome Smite gives you a level appropriate attack and a supposedly level appropriate attack penalty to the target for one turn (although it's frankly so large at high levels that it's basically a stunlock), but only if you're Charisma/Wisdom like a Grind Paladin "should be." Again, there's no actual benefit from mentioning those attribute bonuses, it should just give you level appropriate numbers and move on.

But Frank, this is true of all kinds of penalties. If you replaced them with an Shadowcaster Blinding everyone (50% miss) and a Warlock Weakened them (half damage) you would see the same increasing returns. But, both would presumably be "Cursing" role characters, so your "cursing" role self-stacks in the same way you say roles shouldn't.

Yeah. I mentioned that in the post you were responding to, but you cut it off.

Similarly, if unchecked, penalties are worth more bonus rounds the more of them you add - so unless you do something about it - everyone spamming curses is way more effective than a mixed or interesting strategy. (seriously, a -3 penalty when they hit you on a 12 will on average extend the fight for 50% longer, while a -3 penalty when they already hit you on a 15 will on average extend the fight by 100% and the next -3 penalty will extend th battle by 200% even if a 20 always hits).

The idea is that a Primary Class gives you something like 3 "path" selections, each of which is a progression of several abilities across the levels. The Subclass gives you access to a specific path from the class it's based on, scaling at the same rate.

Will you attempt to balance ever class combination, or is that a lost cause? because it seems like it to me.

Balancing all the class/subclass combinations in expansions is a fruitless endeavor that cannot succeed. Balancing at least one of the combinations of expansion objects is plausible and necessary. So when you make Raptorans, you decide that the iconic Raptoran is a Harab Seraph and is a Paladin sub Necromancer. So you make sure that the Raptoran bonus power is balanced for a Paladin sub Necromancer. You don't honestly give a fuck if the power is underpowered for an Artificer sub Hero. Similarly, when you make the Giant subclass, you're basically assuming that people are going to make Hero Giants, right? So you balance that. If Fire Giant Warlocks are weaksauce, you don't give two shits.

Similarly, you have a limited scope of playtesting by the sampling method for the basic groups. You are going to test up:

• Every Race with every primary class (169 combinations), but not with every class/subclass combination (2028 combinations) or even every combination of class paths (1521 combinations).
• Every Class with every Subclass (156 combinations), but not every path combination with each subclass (4212 combinations) or even every basic path with each subclass option (1404 combinations).
• Every class path option (351 combinations), but not with each race option (4563 combinations), or with each subclass choice (4212 combinations).

So you're going to crunch numbers on 676 data points, but if it makes you feel better, only 351 of them have to be unique.

So you're walking away with confidence that at least one of the possible Gnome Necromancer sub Rogue builds is viable and not overpowered, and that all of the Necromancer path choices are viable and not overpowered with at least one race and subclass option, and that at least one Necromancer path option is viable and not overpowered with every subclass using at least one race.

-Username17

[Orion]

Frank, although your post touches on all the topics I raised, in every case it seems to miss the point.

On Class/Subclass Pairings. I'm down with most of the things you're saying we're not going to balance; I'm actively in favor of unbalanced race/path combos (elf warlocks and orc warlocks SHOULD use different spells) and path/subclass combos (obviously the Nightmare mount goes with /Hero and the Succubus goes with /Assassin). But: You seem to be claiming that we will make sure ever class/subclass combo in the PHB is playable. I am asserting that that is unlikely, as every subclass progression is likely to be redundant to at least one base class.

Re: Cursing. Your example rests on the explicit *interaction* between the two accuracy debuffs, and the synergy came from the shape of the d20. My point was that the "off the RNG" issue is not even required. ANY effect of the form "you live X% longer than you otherwise would" will add more absolute ROUNDS the more previous effects you have applied.

Also, that kind of "synergy is seriously not very impressive. Sure, the first SLOW adds 3 rounds and the second adds 6. But consider what Healing does. If Enemy DPS = 40, your Paladin has 10 HPS, and you have 70 HP, your healer is buying you 1 extra turn. But if you use Slow to put the enemies down to 20 DPS, the enemies would kill you in 4 rounds without healing, and 7 rounds with healing.

Your healer's effectiveness TRIPLED, meaning that even IF each controller doubles the effectiveness of other controllers, mixed roles could *still* be better.

[Mask_De_H]

Having attributes be useful or necessary for things like attacks or major character abilities is basically bad in a game with rigidly defined classes. The basic problem is quite apparent in 4e: namely that you aren't going to multiclass Wizard and Rogue. Like, at all. In short, there isn't any real difference between attribute arrays that are "better" for a build and attribute arrays that are "required" for the build. And that means that what attribute arrays that "add" to powers do is to set a restricted subset of characters that are level appropriate and consign all other possible builds to be variously weaker than that.

And that's fine if that's your only playspace division. Basically what you're doing is to create defacto character classes based on the available stat arrays, and then you're telling people that they can play across class, but they get penalized for it. There might even be synergies that can be found such that players with a lot of system mastery can find new viable classes that you hadn't planned. But if you already have a limited set of classes, such a division is just consigning some of the explicit options in the game to being traps. You're saying that Necromancer subs Artificer well because both are Intelligence classes; but Warlock can't sub Ranger well because Warlock is a Will class and Ranger is a Strength class.

Understood. If your class features are level appropriate, and you want most, if not all class/subclass setups to be viable, then the stats shouldn't be additive to the class build because then you run into "Why the fuck can't I play an Orc Shaman Artificer?" problem.

In short, while there can be something in there about getting an Int bonus for being an Artificer (thus making it so that Artificers always have at least a "pretty good" Perception defense), or tying some Artificer bonus skills to Int (so that Artificers are highly encouraged to have a good Perception defense), you can't really have meaty class features of the Artificer depend on any way on having any particular investment into Int. Because if you did, you wouldn't be able to sub Warlock or Ranger off an Artificer chassis.

From the standpoint of 4e Design, powers like Holy Strike and Shielding Smite should not require, add, or even mention your attributes in any way. Holy Smite has a level appropriate attack and damage bonus if and only if you are Strength/Wisdom like a Tron Paladin "should be." But there's no flavor or interest to that, it should just tell you what the level appropriate bonuses are and give them to you. Similarly, Fearsome Smite gives you a level appropriate attack and a supposedly level appropriate attack penalty to the target for one turn (although it's frankly so large at high levels that it's basically a stunlock), but only if you're Charisma/Wisdom like a Grind Paladin "should be." Again, there's no actual benefit from mentioning those attribute bonuses, it should just give you level appropriate numbers and move on.

So the stats should merely be defense setups and numbers used for skill checks, which is why you used Fort, Ref, Will instead of Str, Dex, Wis or whatever. Makes sense. I like the first option given for classes (get a stat bonus for being in the class) as well.

That being said, if we give class stat bonuses, how much should we give out? The spread is already +/- 4 at chargen, and +/- 10 is kicking someone straight off the RNG with a d20 system. My money's on a maximum +/- 7 bound, seeing as how that's the median between the two numbers, and to get to that point would require a massive deficiency in an area or two, creating someone who is nigh-impervious in one regard, but incredibly frail in another, as Catharz said.

So, attacks under this setup would be something like this, assuming DC 10+Defense Stat (Dex/Int), 10 wound boxes, every 2 points over the DC equals an extra hit.

As well as:

Damage taken = base damage - soak stat (Str/Wil) + net hits.

Then:

Accurate Attack: Deals 1 damage, has an accuracy of +1. Given the bound of +/- 7, at maximum it hits on a 16, at minimum it hits on a 2. Max damage on a 2 is 10 before soak, with minimum soak it becomes 17, with max soak it's 3. Max damage on a 16 is 3 before soak, with max soak it's negated, min soak it's 10. Min damage is 1, with minimum soak that becomes 8, max soak it's totally negated.

Damaging Attack: Deals 3 damage, has an accuracy of +0. Max hits on 17, min hit on 3. Max damage on 3 is 11 before soak, 18 min soak, 4 max soak. Max damage on 17 is 4 before soak, min soak is 11, max soak is negated. Min damage is 3 before soak, 10 min soak, negated max soak.

So at a given level, a min/maxxed stat can stop lesser attacks dead and takes a full bore attack to do some real damage, whereas a completely suxxorz defense basically makes it so any incoming attack will hit/will fuck the target up. That being said, very evasive monsters should have really good defenses but fuck all for soak, while tanky monsters can get away with having horrible defenses but really good soak. If a monster has really good soak and defense, it's basically invincible.

EDIT: Wrong terminology, was still thinking of SAME system there.

[CatharzGodfoot]

That being said, if we give class stat bonuses, how much should we give out? The spread is already +/- 4 at chargen, and +/- 10 is kicking someone straight off the RNG with a d20 system. My money's on a maximum +/- 7 bound, seeing as how that's the median between the two numbers, and to get to that point would require a massive deficiency in an area or two, creating an eggshell with a hammer.

A character with a Will of +7, Reflex of 0, and Fortitude of -7 is not an 'eggshell with a hammer'. It's a guy who is immune to attacks against her mind and incredibly frail.

In an 'attributes are just defenses' setup, divergent scores are something you have to fight for, not against.

[Mask_De_H]

Here's my first pass at HP and weapons.

[Username17]

But: You seem to be claiming that we will make sure ever class/subclass combo in the PHB is playable. I am asserting that that is unlikely, as every subclass progression is likely to be redundant to at least one base class.

If you can't make a Hero sub Artificer, I feel that we have failed. That way lies a very slippery slope that ends in the kind of rigid "right way and wrong way" of job pairing in FFXI. The key is that when someone asks what your character is, you are going to initially say three things:

• Race
• Class
• Subclass

As long as all three of those things are right out of the PHB, there should be no "wrong" answer at that point. This is important, because when you're explaining the classes and races to your girlfriend, you are not going to be initially focusing in on the tactical subtleties enough for her to make a strategically sound choice - that comes later and with more rules familiarity.

So it's totally fine if the Questing Hero or the Inspiring Hero build don't work well with sub Artificer, as long as the Avenging Hero still subs Artificer well. That is to say, there can be as many bad character options as you like - but when you give a brief overview of the game to a new player, and they choose the character race/class/subclass combination that they want to play, an experienced player should be able to make a viable character with those constraints.

If the noob says that they thing being an Orcish Monk sub Necromancer sounds cool, there needs to be at least one viable build that an experienced players can make for him. Because if you give the new player the options and they say that they want to be a Gnome Ranger sub Paladin, you had better not get a pained expression and ask them to pick again. It would be bad for the image, and thus the marketability, of the game.

-Username17

[Orion]

Frank, I'm share your reasoning 100% on why this is desirable, but I'm worried that it will be one of the hardest design goals to meet, and am wondering if there's some design framework we need to put in place to make it happen.

[Username17]

Frank, I'm share your reasoning 100% on why this is desirable, but I'm worried that it will be one of the hardest design goals to meet, and am wondering if there's some design framework we need to put in place to make it happen.

A good chunk of it can be done using initial mathematics and comparisons, but you're right that really there have to be some ground rules set up at the beginning to make things work. So every one of the basic races have generic powers that can be plausibly used by any kind of character. They don't get crap like the 4e Tiefling's flaming rebuke thing that is only useful for a character who runs into melee. Instead, it looks something like this:

• Drow are treacherous. So they get a Treacherous Attack that lets them grab a combat advantage on whatever attacks they are doing - which means it's always going to be useful because everyone wants combat advantage on their attack. They also have a movement option that is also treacherous where they switch places with one of their allies. So a Drow Necromancer uses it classically to pull themselves out of melee by throwing a zombie in. But a Drow Hero can use it to pull vulnerable party members out of danger so that they can stab monsters. And of course, they get some sort of Treacherous Skill Challenge ability that like all Skill Challenge abilities is fairly generic in its utility.

And to an extent, I think that the same thing can be done with the 13 basic subjobs. The abilities you give out for subbing Druid or Elementalist are pretty arbitrary, they could be pretty much anything reminiscent of the normal Druid or Elementalist powers. And so if we choose things of relatively generic utility we can increase the likelihood that each of the subjobs would matchup with any of the main classes.

But I think the biggest thing that can be done is to acknowledge that people have actually a fair amount of options of how to put together their main class, but that subjobs are pretty much a rail. Which means that seriously, subjobs should be finalized first. When you're making up the Inspiring, Questing, and Avenging Hero, you want to have the subartificer, the subnecromancer, and the subwarlock already pretty much done so that you can make sure that at least one of those packages works well with each available subjob. It's OK if you always want to pick Inspiring Hero if you're subbing Necromancer, always want to pick Questing when subbing Warlock, and always want to pick Avenging when subbing Artificer, as long as there is a Hero package that works with each of those subjobs.

At a first approximation, the subjobs can be divied up into three groups. One group of five, and two groups of four. And you can send one of the main options to be the default choice in each of those groups of subjobs and make sure it works. So you have subNecromancer, subDruid, subBard, and subPsion in "Group II" and you decide that Inspiring Hero would be the option that you made sure was well synergistic there. And then you'd have to run your Inspiring Hero Package through four different subjobs to fill out Group II, and if it passed great. And if not, fiddle with the powers of Inspiring Hero.

And yeah, you would not have checked to see if Avenging Hero subbing Psion worked well. It would be better if it did, but you don't honestly care that much. You've already hit the point where you know that if a new player walks into the game and says that they want to play a sword wielding champion with some mind powers (presumably because they want to play an armored Jedi) that the experienced players can at the least grab the Inspiring Hero option and sub Psion and have a valid character.

-Username17

[Orion]

It seems to me the first and most important decision should be whether subjobs hand out standard action abilities meant to be used in combat, or not. That should *probably* be consistent across all subjobs.

You can readily imagine a game where subjob abilities were "utility" powers that affected story mode, and passive resistances and rule exemptions rather than real combat actions.

SubHero would get fear resistance, an aura of inspiration, a bonus to lead tiny men, social bonuses with military or noble types, etc;

SubRanger would get a stealth form (rat) a flight form (crow) and a tracking form (dog)

SubDruid would get Woodland Stride, Tree Stride, a "utility" companion like a scouting hawk, etc.

SubPsion would get telepathic communication, mind probing, resistance to mind control, and noncombat telekinesis.

However, you hit a very big stumbling block here: there are certain standard combat shticks that people are GOING to want to staple onto their characters. Sword-fighting and fire blasting, in particular, are "cool" attributes that many fantasy heroes incidentally happen to possess, regardless of what their "real" shtick is. I'm just going to focus on swordfighting for a moment, but fire blasting suffers many of the same difficulties.

Mixing combat magic with swordfighting is damn tricky, especially if you want fighting mages to use anything but buffs and summoning. And you do. That's why "Gish" is its own complete class in this writeup, so you can tweak just the right combination of sword attacks, fireballs, and fiery sword attacks. But not everyone who wants to mix swords and sorcery is going to want to play a Gish. And if you've committed yourself to allowing every class combo to be viable, you're committing to the existence of Druid/Heroes and Warlock/Heroes.

Someone who wants to play a Druid/Hero *presumably* wants to use that sword to gut people, not as a prop waved about to give Inspiration bonuses to his summoned animals. And so it seems necessary that a subclass progression exist that looks like (to borrow your ability progression model):

Armsmaster
(1): Power Attack
(2): Tripping Attack
3: Valorous Charge
4: Whirlwind Attack
5: Leghewer (anti-giant attack)
6: Groin Attack
7: Dash Attacks
8: Distracting Blow
9: Wall of Steel
10: Deadly Abandon

The problem is, when you staple this on you find that different characters receive it very differently

Paladins, Assassins, and Gish presumably already have sword attacks with substantial functional overlap

Rangers, and maybe Monks will be as above, except potentially not even be able to use their sword moves while in their default combat stances.

Warlocks and probably Elementalists will already have dps attacks that are "spells" and will gain little value from sword attacks.

The Armsmaster subclass progression will probably underperform for the above groups. Meanwhile, (Bards), and (Psions) will of course already have other uses of their time, but at least should gain significant tactical versatility.

Finally, {Druids} and {Necromancers} will either be unreasonably powerful by stacking their sword damage with their pet's damage, or managing/supporting their pets requires all their standard actions, will get relatively little benefit.

----

It seems like the Bard/Hero would probably be the balance point I would shoot for, and while it's fairly easy to make sure nothing is substantially *better* than that, it seems very difficult to make sure nothing is *worse*.

[Username17]

It seems to me that everyone who subs Hero is going to want to hit things with a sword sometimes. It's kind of the shtick. That's where I figure on the three groups of subjobs fitting in. Group I jobs (probably Gish, Hero, Monk, Paladin, and Ranger) all provide some kind of melee capabilities, so at least one of the builds for each main class is going to want to synergize tactically with running up and stabbing people in the face sometimes. So for example, the Lightning Warlock gets a bunch of shocking grasp, static field, thunder wave etc. stuff that can profit from a secondary melee focus because you are presumably going to close range to use that stuff in the first place. The Group II classes (probably Bard, Druid, Necromancer, and Psion) can all get you a pet one way or another, and the Darkness Warlock gets a bunch of debuffing attacks that synergize with pets of all sorts. And the Group III classes (Artificer, Elementalist, Rogue and Warlock) all help you hang back and nuke. The Fire Warlock does a lot of DOT and long range nuking, so the synergy there is obvious.

Now it's entirely possible that you can make a perfectly good Fire Warlock who subs Necromancer and uses skeleton pets as ablative shielding while lighting fools on fire and letting the DOTs win the battle. That seems like the kind of thing that might be a viable strategy. But you'd only actually be testing the Fire Warlock subArtificer who threw glue bombs and lit people on fire, the Fire Warlock subRogue who acted like a 3e Flask Rogue, and the Fire Warlock subElementalist who burned people up in sandstorms.

You're already testing 9 Warlocks. You might as well make it an even 12 and test them with different subjob powers.

---

So anyway, more on Racial Powers. While your race should not mandate all of your power selections forever (bad 4e! Bad!), and it shouldn't define what classes you can and cannot take (likewise!), it should actually matter. That's a hard line to walk, and you'll note that 4e authors don't seem to be able to figure out how to make a race matter is to have them define whether your numbers can be level appropriate in your class of choice and whether you have access to the proper feat taxes to make your build function. And that shit is shit. 4e would do better to just open all that crap to everyone, give everyone +2 to all stats, and drop the races entirely. But that's just because the races have no flavor and don't actually feel like they matter at any point.

But the irony is that they were actually sitting on part of the solution the whole time - in the Elf and Halfing special abilities. That thing where they can force a situational reroll is not only totally awesome and extremely noticeable, it's balanced and relevant at all levels. And those powers are beneficial to every class. If they gave something like that to every race, and then they gave every race a couple more of them so that they had a little bit of depth, then every race would matter. And every race would have adherents.

But the big cornerstone problem is that when it gives the little spiel about how you should play a Halfling if..., only two out of three of those are the kinds of things that are acceptable. Bad writing can drop those to one or even no valid lines on some of the races. Seriously, open up he teaser for why you might want to play an Elf. Then cry. The first suggestion is an oxymoron and the other two are "play a bow ranger." That's not even half OK. But seriously, let's look at the 4e suggestions for why you might want to play a halfling:

Play a halfling if you want . . .
✦ to be a plucky hero who is all too easy to underestimate.
✦ to be likable, warm, and friendly.
✦ to be a member of a race that favors the rogue, ranger, and warlock classes.

That last one is ten flavors of bullshit. Not the least because last time I checked the only valid Halfling build was Duelist Rogue and Thunder Sorcerer. But mostly because no race should ever advertise itself by its game mechanically sound synergy with any class or classes. It should advertise itself on the merits of the actual race's thematic merits.

In any case, every race should have a thing to do in every aspect of the game. As such, they should all provide a bonus that you can cash in during your attacks (a "Boost" to steal terminology from Weeaboo Fightan Magic). And they should all provide a thing to benefit movement or defenses. These are the things that 4e calls "Utility" because they aren't attacks. But I prefer the word "Maneuver" because Utility implies that they are more, um... useful than that. And finally, every Race should have a thing it does during Skill Challenges. And I don't mean getting a +2 bonus to Perception and providing an aura of Perception bonus to allies. I mean something you can actually do during a Skill Challenge.

So these aren't finished or even sketched out completely. But you can see where this is going:

Drow

• Treacherous Attack (Boost): Your action is taken with Combat Advantage.
• Treacherous Tactics (Maneuver): Switch positions with an ally.
• Distracting Recovery (Exploit): Annul a failed Skill check.

Dwarf

• Determined Attack (Boost): Take an action with full concentration, ignoring distractions.
• Determination (Maneuver): Get super Willful.
• Stubborn Progress (Exploit):

Elf

• Graceful Attack (Boost): Reroll an attack.
• Graceful Step (Maneuver): Shift extra distance and ignore difficult terrain while doing it.
• (Exploit):

Gith

• (Boost):
• Phasing Leap (Maneuver): Teleport a short distance instead of moving normally.
• (Exploit):

Gnome

• Creative Attack (Boost): Your attack gets to go up against different defenses and resistances than normal.
• Climbing the Giant Technique (Maneuver): Move into an opponent's space and ignore their zone of control.
• Creative Problem Solving (Exploit): Use a different skill.

Goblin

• Sneaky Abuse (Boost): Cash in for an additional
• Sneaky Positioning (Maneuver): Shift during someone else's turn.
• (Exploit):

Halfling

• Tricky Attack (Boost):
• Second Chance (Maneuver): Force an enemy to reroll an attack against you.
• (Exploit):

Hob

• Careful Attack (Boost): Take 10 on your attack.
• Careful Movement (Maneuver): Ignore Difficult Terrain and traps and stuff.
• Careful Performance (Exploit): Take 10 on a skill check.

Human

• (Boost):
• (Maneuver):
• Versatility (Exploit): Reroll a Skill Check.

Kobold

• (Boost):
• Shifty (Maneuver): Get extra shifts.
• (Exploit):

Orc

• Wrathful Attack (Boost): Get a damage boost on an attack you are making.
• (Maneuver):
• Impetuousness (Exploit): After successfully performing a skill check, immediately get an opportunity to use another.

Tiefling

• Cruel Attack (Boost): Get a big damage bonus on an attack you're making against
• (Maneuver):
• (Exploit):

Warforged

• (Boost):
• Metal Resilience (Maneuver): Draw upon superior Fortitude.
• Tireless (Exploit):

But the real takehome idea is that when you put up the little blurb about why people might want to play a Halfling, it should look something like this:

Play a halfling if you want . . .
✦ to be a plucky hero who is all too easy to underestimate.
✦ to be likable, warm, and friendly.
✦ to be a tricky character who can rely upon luck.

---

Expansion Races!

When you do the giants up, they are going to be races in addition to a mandatory subclass and a level minimum (people will ignore the level minimums and play 1st level Stone Giants anyway, but there's no reason to stoop to that level). So being a Frost Giant involves having a Boost, a Maneuver, and an Exploit as well.

But you'll note that the Frost Giant Race and the Giant Subclass will be written after all the basic classes are finalized. And while it comes out in Castles in the Sky alongside some new Gish options, and you could plausibly do some playthroughs with a Frost Giant Thane of Winter Gish or Summerlord Gish, that won't really affect the original classes at all. So what you're going to do is to pick an iconic class (probably Hero or Gish) and then test just that. And while the Giant subClass is a lot like a Group I subClass, there's no reason that Frost Giants will be any good with any type of Warlock. Possibly not even Lightning Warlock. And that's totally OK. It's an expansion option, so it really only has to make one viable character as long as the players can easily identify what that viable character is (I'm guessing Runelord Gish).

And not only are there classes in the basic book that the Giant subClass is ignoring, there are class options and entire classes that are in simultaneous development while the Giant subClass is in the works. You actually have no idea what the Ninja class can even do when you make the Frost Giant's chassis, because Might of Empires simply hasn't been written yet while you're dealing with it.

And inevitably there is going to b some sort of horrible synergy between some of these things. And that's a problem. Someone is going to figure out that being a Gnoll Thane of Winter Gish who subs Pirate is just for whatever reason a terror. And to an extent, that sort of thing can be OK. If people feel that their system mastery is being rewarded by the super secret character they made with a race from Law of the Jungle using a PHB class that relies heavily on options from Castles in the Sky and a subclass from Borders of Chaos, then that player feels pretty clever - and the game designer feels like he just sold some dude four books. But you'll have to keep tabs on that sort of thing, because you don't want things to actually break. You may have to errata things if Nezumi Psion subSamurai are too good.

-Username17

[Orion]

I'm confused on how a few of the classes justify themselves:

Elementalists seems VERY similar to Warlocks. You already have Warlocks shooting fire, and in the expansion book ice and lightning. And their pets can provide various other roles. I assume that when you said "upgrade" warmage to elementalist, you meant that area control should become their primary shtick?

Having both Bards and Psions seems redundant. You could seriously make telekinetic powers one selectable option for Psions, and just let "bard" players use mind control/illusion psions.

What do Gish do specially that a Hero/Elementalist doesn't? I *assume* gish powers are going to be spell-channeling weapon attacks. What other "magic" powers will they have?

If we can get the number of base classes down, we can design the PHB so much faster.

ETA: I also think having an Assassin class is necessary. You know and i know that a Fighter and a Rogue are the same thing, but not all new players will. People will want to play "a thief" or "a sneaky dude" and despite the fact that any of a number of classes could plausibly undertake that career, they will be put off if there's not "thief class." We'll justify it as a class in itself by giving it "shadow" powers for stealth, teleportation, single-target debuff, etc.

[Orion]

Dwarf: Stubborn Progress (Exploit): You get +5 to all skill rolls on retries.

Warforged: Tireless Assistance (exploit): an ally whom you Aid Another for can reroll a skill check.

Tiefling: Firewalker (maneuver): you have passive fire resistance
Tiefling: Tyrannical Authority (exploit): you receive double benefits from Aid Another

Gith: Astral Reach (boost): increase range of an attack by 50%, to a minimum of 2 (this affects melee attacks)

[Orca]

Tieflings probably want to have something more general than firewalker. Since the Great Wheel does have a frozen-over layer of hell (Stygia?) & places loaded with acid etc., elemental resistance could be justified.

More ideas
Warforged: Endurance of the Machine (boost): reuse a temporarily expended power or attack

Gith: Shadowing the Mind (exploit): use another's skill bonus

Orc: Fearless Charge (maneuver): gain a speed bonus when moving towards an enemy

[Mask_De_H]

I'm confused on how a few of the classes justify themselves:

Elementalists seems VERY similar to Warlocks. You already have Warlocks shooting fire, and in the expansion book ice and lightning. And their pets can provide various other roles. I assume that when you said "upgrade" warmage to elementalist, you meant that area control should become their primary shtick?

The Warlock will have primarily single target blast attacks, which are based off of conjuring up planar gobbledygook. The Elementalist will have area effect and artillery strikes based on the element group they took. A Fire Warlock shoots hellfire from his mouth, an Earthen Elementalist causes the ground to buckle and a magma jet to fly out.

Having both Bards and Psions seems redundant. You could seriously make telekinetic powers one selectable option for Psions, and just let "bard" players use mind control/illusion psions.

I was kind of confused when Frank grouped Bard and Psion in the same section, because the Psion seemed more of a burst DPS class like the Rogue (note that this comes from the little two role setup thing I have on the first page of the IMOI thread). The Bard is an ally buffer/enemy debuffer and works area effect. The Psion makes himself a more effective combatant through telepathy and shoots single targets with his mind. They have different design goals.

What do Gish do specially that a Hero/Elementalist doesn't? I *assume* gish powers are going to be spell-channeling weapon attacks. What other "magic" powers will they have?

Gishes will most likely get attacks that are somewhere between Tales of X Series and this from 3:00 on. They use magical wards and force shields to protect a large group of people, while doing "splash damage".

If we can get the number of base classes down, we can design the PHB so much faster.

The 13 is a nice motif though; 13 races, 13 classes, 13 iconic heroes.

ETA: I also think having an Assassin class is necessary. You know and i know that a Fighter and a Rogue are the same thing, but not all new players will. People will want to play "a thief" or "a sneaky dude" and despite the fact that any of a number of classes could plausibly undertake that career, they will be put off if there's not "thief class." We'll justify it as a class in itself by giving it "shadow" powers for stealth, teleportation, single-target debuff, etc.

Huh? That's a truism for 4e (and to a certain extent, 3e), but that doesn't have to be the case. If somebody wants to play a thief, they can be a Dirty Fighting/Espionage/yer mum Rogue.

Really though, if only in skeletal form and if only in basic concept; a lot of that stuff is covered in the IMOI thread.

[Orion]

Mask,

there currently IS no "rogue" class. And there *shouldn't* be because "hero" and "ranger" are seriously capable of covering every valid "rogue" concept.

but just like the players want Drow and Warforged, they want a "thief" class, so they get one. Hence, Shadow Assassins NEED to be in the core book.