Non-d20 D&D project

[angelfromanotherpin]

So, D&D doesn't do what I want it to. Attempted fixes, whether modest or epic have not worked to my satisfaction. So, I'm going to try to describe what I want and how I want it, and then ask y'all to poke holes in it or make suggestions, both of which will help.

What I Want: Characters

The basis of character building is twofold: Levels and Powers. The level of a character, whether a PC or an encounter, is the measure of its capability. Each time a character gains a Level, they get three Powers, all their Powers become level-appropriate, and they get a small across-the-board bonus. That’s all there is.

Now you may ask, how can a game feel like D&D without all the systemic artifacts of D&D? I'm going to look at a bunch of these, and examine how they can be incorporated.

Ability Scores
This is easy. You just have a Power or two for each Ability. If a character is strong, they choose the Strength Power, and if a character is agile, they take the Dexterity Power. Each of those Powers come with a list of specific benefits, which scale with level one way or another.

Classes
Classes are easy, too. So, when I mentioned above that at each Level, a character gets three Powers? One of them must be a combat Power, and one of them must be a noncombat Power (I’ll get to the third one later). Well, for each of those arenas, players are encouraged to pick a theme and stick with it. I’d use the ‘themes are cool’ form of encouragement, but you could use prerequisites or something. There you go, it now feels like characters have Classes.

Skills
Skills are also Powers, either Combat or Noncombat. You pick ‘em, and then they provide level-appropriate capabilities forever.

Feats
In D&D, Feats are supposed to be how your character is different from everyone else who has your race/class combo. They’re what makes you the Spiked Chain fighter, or the super-Enchanter, or whatever. They fail in practice, but the idea is good.

Remember that third Power every level? That’s what this is for. That’s where a Paladin, whose ‘class’ themes are, for example, Tank/Healer, would pick up his Detects, his Smites, and his Mounted Combat.

You get one every level, choosing either a combat Power or a noncombat Power each time, and you have to keep the number of combat and noncombat Powers as even as possible. (Maybe you don’t even have to keep them that even, or at all even, that would be a playtest issue) The point is that you have half as many out-of-theme powers as you do in-theme powers.

Races
Some people want to play in a Hyborian-age style setting, where there’s no such thing as an Elf, some people want to play in a Tolkienesque-style setting, where there’s a short list of ‘humans with prosthetics’ peoples, and some people want to play in a Rifts-style setting, where you can play a human-demon-golem hybrid or a heptapus, or whatever.

There’s no problem with any of these preferences, and it’s totally a matter of group preferences whether the group comes up with a setting first and builds their characters to that setting; or whether all the players bring write-ups of whatever they want to play, and then come up with a setting to fit them.

The key point is customizability. Maybe there’s a Power called ‘Elf’ which counts among its benefits keen senses and walking on snow. Maybe a player took a few unrelated powers like ‘Longevity’ and ‘Forest Affinity’ and called the result an Elf. Mechanically, ‘Race’ becomes the expression of one or more Powers, and I don’t think they need to be distinguished from any other kind of Powers.

So, some people will play a Wizard-themed ‘class,’ or a Rogue-themed ‘class,’ and take Elf-related Feats; and some people will play an Elf-themed ‘class,’ (Archer/Diviner) and do something else with their Feats, like walking on snow and trolls, or summoning elementals.

Equipment
So, there are two ways to do equipment, magic or otherwise. The first is to give characters some of their capabilities externally, which can be handled well (Book of Gears) or poorly (Wealth by Level). The second is to incorporate equipment into Powers, which is, unsurprisingly, what I favor.

So, we just assume that a character with Climb has crampons at low level, and boots of wall-walking at higher level, and so on; we also assume that a character with Use Rope just has rope at low level, and magic rope at higher level, and so on; and that it’s already accounted for in those Powers’ effects.

Similarly, when a character has Martial Weapon Proficiency, it’s assumed that they have a sword instead of a stick or knife. Maybe that kind of Power has a modular effect, where swords have a to hit bonus, axes have a damage bonus, and the character has some opportunity to switch between them.

At the same time, maybe the guy with Climb doesn’t have equipment, but just has Spider-Man wall-crawling. Maybe the Paladin’s Smite Evil comes from his pure heart, and maybe it comes from his Holy Avenger. Sometimes it does matter, and sometimes it doesn’t. Maybe to keep in D&D genre, a certain proportion of Powers must be declared to be equipment-based.

What’s Missing?
Well, frankly, mechanical stuff. I don’t even have a base system yet, let alone a long list of Powers written up. I don’t have good guidelines for what's level appropriate at each level. I'll have to work on these, obviously.


I'll have another installment, this time on what I want from an Adventure, later.

[Fwib]

How would you do spellcasting?

[angelfromanotherpin]

1192216922[/unixtime]]How would you do spellcasting?

As a collection of specific Powers. Somewhere on this board is a post which talks about a caster getting one or two 'meta-spells' per level, and access to the appropriate effects in those categories as they level up.

So, if you took the 'Fire, Yo' combat Power, you'd always have access to level-appropriate fire-damage effects from then on. Similarly, if you took the 'Looook Into My Eyes' Power, you'd always have access to level-appropriate Charm effects from then on.

Ideally, I'd have all abilities be unlimited-use, since an action you take in the first round of combat shouldn't be over-powered to make up for under-powered options later in combat. Some effects, like healing, make this a little problematic, so I'm looking at some other restrictions. I'll talk about those in the Adventures bit, later on.

[Manxome]

1192222048[/unixtime]]Some effects, like healing, make this a little problematic, so I'm looking at some other restrictions. I'll talk about those in the Adventures bit, later on.

You can make that particular problem go away (or at least be reduced) if you build in the assumption that all characters will be fully healed between encounters anyway; then the advantage of getting a healing power is just that you can heal during combat, so the action cost is the same as for anything else.

Abolishing limited-use abilities but making out-of-combat healing time-consuming doesn't seem to make a great deal of sense, anyway. If you don't object to the player having hit points that aren't replenished between encounters, what's wrong with spell points or limited-use abilities that also aren't replenished?

You still need to worry about the fact that negative-damage actions can prevent a combat from ever ending, of course.

[Ecureuil_Diabolique]

Well a good way to figure out how to level things appropriately would be to figure out how many levels you want and what you want maxed out characters to be able to do. Personally I like less levels and more at each level. 10-20 is probably a good bet. Then figure out what you want pretty much everyone in the world (or just the cool people that the PCs are) able to do at first level and sort of scale it, tweaking things along the way.

I like this idea and once you get a base system going I'd be glad to help you out developing it assuming you like any of my ideas.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Manxome, my concern is that I enjoy situations where characters get worn down over the course of several encounters. It's possible that could be treated as one, long, interrupted encounter, but that seems like it could be more work than building in limits. Besides, people can come into a fight worn down by many different things, and not all of them are combat damage.

One of my present thoughts for limited out-of-combat healing is that each healer gets to apply one healing effect to each character after each combat encounter - the 'bandaging' scene. This might or might not allow the combatants to walk away from a fight with more hit points than they began it with. That would be another playtest issue.

On the other hand, I think any group with or without a healer could get a lot of attrition removed by specifically taking a downtime period. Part of the Adventure requirements is a time-sensitive situation anyway, so that would be its own cost.

I'm not a fan of in-combat healing at all. I've seen it produce either poor action parity, or the Team Cleric effect, or the 'kill the medics first' attitude; none of which I like.

On the subject of limited ability use versus limited hit point recovery. Sure, if you come into a fight with either of them low, it limits your options: the low-HP character must limit the risk they expose themselves to, the character with one ability use left must take sub-par actions and wait for the opportune moment. The question becomes, why was that ability limited in number of uses in the first place? The answer is almost always because it was more powerful than other available abilities, and that's a model I want to step away from.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Well a good way to figure out how to level things appropriately would be to figure out how many levels you want and what you want maxed out characters to be able to do. Personally I like less levels and more at each level. 10-20 is probably a good bet.

I actually kind of like the 1-20 range that D&D has now, with it's kind-of-exponential progression. That would also give me a pre-existing, semi-reasonable guideline for what effects are level appropriate.

Then figure out what you want pretty much everyone in the world (or just the cool people that the PCs are) able to do at first level and sort of scale it, tweaking things along the way.

Well, I think that a first-level being would basically be a single rat. Adventurers are probably 4th level at minimum.

If we look at how D&D is supposed to function, you can get a full spread of relative encounters in 11 levels. 1st level things in any number basically don't bother 6th-level things, and an 11th level-thing feels the same way about 6th-level things. So if the PCs are 6th level, you have all the encounter levels you need, from things they can slaughter endlessly, up through a variety of inferior foes, to equals and superior foes, to boss monsters, to things they just run from, all in just 11 levels.

6th level is also a very reasonable level to adventure at indefinitely, so one could get by with that spread as a minimum. I think I'll begin with that as an assumption, and leave the higher spreads for later.

I like this idea and once you get a base system going I'd be glad to help you out developing it assuming you like any of my ideas.

I appreciate your support.

[Voss]

1192226516[/unixtime]]
One of my present thoughts for limited out-of-combat healing is that each healer gets to apply one healing effect to each character after each combat encounter - the 'bandaging' scene. This might or might not allow the combatants to walk away from a fight with more hit points than they began it with. That would be another playtest issue.

One of the problems with this is various bullshit work-arounds players will come up with. Attack me/Summon a (weaker) monster for me to fight/Whatever so I can be healed again!

Ah, ability Power based ability scores. If you've got the Strength Power, your strength would be level appropriate forever. What about the guy without the Strength power? Is he not level-appropriate strong forever? As, in he has the default (Min) bonus, no bonus, or something that sort of scales with level? Is there an Extra-Strong Power? It feels a little too binary when it comes to ability scores, as in, you can fight or not. Ever. Maybe if associated abilities come out through additional Powers it won't feel so on off.

One issue to be aware of with a set up like this are the gimme abilities (the ones everyone wants, like certain defenses, depending on how exactly you handle them), and the potential for Hybrid characters to just win. It isn't necessarily bad, but flavor wise it isn't that tasty, as players end up building Fighty-guy-with-lots-of-hit-points-that-can-disarm- traps-throw-fireballs-and-heal-himself, rather than the Noble Warrior or Wise Mage.

[Crissa]

Angel, could you please not paste from Windows? You're using an unassigned font, so I get alot of weird two-byte characters which my browser tries to find Kanji for...

-Crissa

[angelfromanotherpin]

One of the problems with this is various bullshit work-arounds players will come up with. Attack me/Summon a (weaker) monster for me to fight/Whatever so I can be healed again!

I'm well aware of this sort of thing. I've considered some fixes, but it is probably easier just to not allow hit point profit from a fight.

Ah, ability Power based ability scores. If you've got the Strength Power, your strength would be level appropriate forever. What about the guy without the Strength power? Is he not level-appropriate strong forever?

My theory is that some people's concepts involve bending bars and kicking down doors, and some people's don't. If your concept does, you should be kicking down wooden doors at low level, steel doors at mid level, and force-banded adamnite doors at high level. If your concept doesn't, you don't care that you can't.

As, in he has the default (Min) bonus, no bonus, or something that sort of scales with level? Is there an Extra-Strong Power?

Everyone gets a little better with everything as they level. This isn't much, but you could try if you were desperate. It does feel like there should be Extra-Strong, maybe everything comes in two levels? Like Medium Armor and Heavy Armor proficiencies? Merits further research.

It feels a little too binary when it comes to ability scores, as in, you can fight or not. Ever. Maybe if associated abilities come out through additional Powers it won't feel so on off.

Strength might not actually be a combat Power. It might be all about lifting portcullises and arm-wrestling. The combat version could be Melee Damage, and not care if it comes from iron thews or well-placed blows. Even if Strength became an essential part of all melee builds, I wouldn't care, because it feels really D&D.

One issue to be aware of with a set up like this are the gimme abilities (the ones everyone wants, like certain defenses, depending on how exactly you handle them), and the potential for Hybrid characters to just win.

Could you elaborate on the defenses thing? It's not ringing a bell.

It isn't necessarily bad, but flavor wise it isn't that tasty, as players end up building Fighty-guy-with-lots-of-hit-points-that-can-disarm- traps-throw-fireballs-and-heal-himself, rather than the Noble Warrior or Wise Mage.

Ideally that choice should be totally balanced, because all choices should be totally balanced. If you choose to follow a theme, it's because you think it's cool, or because the GM is enforcing a particular flavor to the game.

That guy? I picture a Fighter/Rogue-type in studded leather with a slingshot full of alchemist's fire and Lucy Pevensie's healing cordial. There's room for that guy.

[angelfromanotherpin]

1192232988[/unixtime]]Angel, could you please not paste from Windows? You're using an unassigned font, so I get alot of weird two-byte characters which my browser tries to find Kanji for...

-Crissa

Um, I'm on a Mac... but the copy's from MSWord, which is probably what makes the difference. In any case, I'll try to refrain in the future. Just in case, is there a particular font that works better? Helvetica, maybe?

[Crissa]

Anything Microsoft will be crappy. Turn off smart quotes, wherever they hid it. In fact, just throw the program away.

The font itself doesn't matter because here we're speaking in ascii or UTF and fonts aren't assigned until you use a <font> tag.

-Crissa

[Ecureuil_Diabolique]

1192228277[/unixtime]

Well, I think that a first-level being would basically be a single rat. Adventurers are probably 4th level at minimum.

If we look at how D&D is supposed to function, you can get a full spread of relative encounters in 11 levels. 1st level things in any number basically don't bother 6th-level things, and an 11th level-thing feels the same way about 6th-level things. So if the PCs are 6th level, you have all the encounter levels you need, from things they can slaughter endlessly, up through a variety of inferior foes, to equals and superior foes, to boss monsters, to things they just run from, all in just 11 levels.

6th level is also a very reasonable level to adventure at indefinitely, so one could get by with that spread as a minimum. I think I'll begin with that as an assumption, and leave the higher spreads for later.

Well if you are going that way, you should probably just use a point-based system. Have player's make characters with x amount of abilities from y categories (sort of like how you have it now). Instead of levels you could have basic power levels based on the total point value of the character. Or stick with levels and have character start above first. Personally I like point-based.

Also, what part of D&D are you balancing things against? Spellcasters, fighters, or somewhere in between? Personally I would go with something linear so it shows that your character is equally progressing with an equal amount of work. When it comes to playing the game that won't really matter though, because you'll just be waiting for the next three abilities you've been wanting.

And on abilities? Is an abilities going to cumulatively give you benefits or replace them? I assume it'll be accumulative only because it seems reasonable to keep what you've learned. And how will you progress them, give them another ability for the power every (x) level(s)?

[Manxome]

1192238947[/unixtime]]

One of the problems with this is various bullshit work-arounds players will come up with. Attack me/Summon a (weaker) monster for me to fight/Whatever so I can be healed again!

I'm well aware of this sort of thing. I've considered some fixes, but it is probably easier just to not allow hit point profit from a fight.

Then you're screwing the guy with the healing power by giving him less usage of the ability (compared to your assumption when you assigned its cost) in the event that the party actually manages to take very little damage from a legitimate encounter (whether by luck or clever strategy or some other character's special power or whatever).

Not to mention that you're similarly screwing players when player A takes all the hits in one combat for some reason, because now players B, C, and D all forfeit their healing for that combat (since they don't need it) but player A can't be healed any extra; one damage is no longer equal to one HP less in the next battle.

I think that creating a power that's obviously combat-centric but which is only used out of combat is a Bad Idea. All your other combat powers will scale based on the amount of combat, but this one will scale based on the number of combats (whether they're small or big), and letting players trade off between two abilities that use completely different rubrics of power is going to be no end of balance headaches.

If you don't want healing to be a combat ability, you should treat it like extra HP (and balance it as such). The healer can restore a total of X HP to himself or his allies (divided as he wishes), and gets his healing replenished on exactly the same schedule as HP can be replenished. The healer is now effectively a "tank" (his extra "HP" can soak damage for anyone in the party). Then you can even throw in the ability to use an arbitrary amount of that healing as a combat action, and it won't be unbalancing--in fact, players will only use it if they're desperate or if there's a lull in the fighting.



You might want to give a little more thought to combat healing, though. I'll agree that healing as a combat ability has gotten completely broken in a large number of games, but if you're going to exclude things merely on the basis that a crappy implementation of them exists somewhere, I don't think you'll have much left.

Healing often gets treated like it is in Final Fantasy, where the boss monsters have ridiculously more HP than the PCs, and you need to heal every round or two just to survive, but you can keep doing it forever as you slowly whittle the boss down. If you do that, you're requiring every party to have healing to survive, and requiring that combat must always be fought on an asymetric basis, and if the rest of your game doesn't operate on those assumptions, you've broken it.

Healing can be an interesting tactical element if you make it conditional or proportional to enemy actions, so you can force them to change tactics, especially if there's flanking, debuffs, or other synergies in the game that make coordinated attacks more effective. For example:

Reversal of Fortune: For X rounds, the next time target ally sustains damage, that damage is converted into an equal amount of healing, and Reversal of Fortune ends.

Not Your Time: For X rounds, if target ally sustains damage that would otherwise be fatal, that damage is negated, that ally is healed for Y, and Not Your Time ends.

Devour the Light: For X rounds, whenever target ally sustains holy damage, that damage is converted into an equal amount of healing.

Equilibrium: For X rounds, if target ally sustains more damage in a single round than the total damage inflicted by that ally upon others in the same round, that ally is healed for twice the difference.

Forgiveness is Fortitude: For X rounds, whenever target ally would normally sustain damage from an enemy attack, instead, the enemy is healed for the amount of damage that would have been inflicted.


EDIT: Typos.

[angelfromanotherpin]

On the point-buy/power-level thing: no. This just isn't a point-buy system.

Also, what part of D&D are you balancing things against? Spellcasters, fighters, or somewhere in between?

I think my balance point is going to be 'most of casters,' lopping off the broken stuff from the top. They're the best guide for when specific effects are supposed to become available.

And on abilities? Is an abilities going to cumulatively give you benefits or replace them? I assume it'll be accumulative only because it seems reasonable to keep what you've learned. And how will you progress them, give them another ability for the power every (x) level(s)?

That's pretty much right. If at all possible, x=1, though.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Then you're screwing the guy with the healing power by giving him less usage of the ability (compared to your assumption when you assigned its cost) in the event that the party actually manages to take very little damage from a legitimate encounter (whether by luck or clever strategy or some other character's special power or whatever).

Isn't that like saying I'm screwing the melee-specialist in the event that the enemies are sniped to death before engaging the party? Sometimes the success of one part of your plan will limit the rest of your plan's ability to participate. As long as its not a constant overshadowing (which indicates an over- or under-powered ability) it should be fine.

Not to mention that you're similarly screwing players when player A takes all the hits in one combat for some reason, because now players B, C, and D all forfeit their healing for that combat (since they don't need it) but player A can't be healed any extra; one damage is no longer equal to one HP less in the next battle.

That's a fair point, but concentrating fire on a target while preventing your enemy from doing the same is sort of a universal tactic anyway, right? So if player A is surrounded and gang-sporked, that's a failure of tactics with the punishment that player A is going to have to be a lot more careful later on. Unless player A is the Tank and designed to suck up that kind of punishment.

I think that creating a power that's obviously combat-centric but which is only used out of combat is a Bad Idea. All your other combat powers will scale based on the amount of combat, but this one will scale based on the number of combats (whether they're small or big), and letting players trade off between two abilities that use completely different rubrics of power is going to be no end of balance headaches.

I don't know... applicability imbalance is how people get their chances to shine. Besides, if Healing isn't a combat power, it's not being traded off for a combat power. Neither social or MacGyver noncombat options scale based on the amount of combat either, and I don't think that's a problem.

If you don't want healing to be a combat ability, you should treat it like extra HP (and balance it as such). The healer can restore a total of X HP to himself or his allies (divided as he wishes), and gets his healing replenished on exactly the same schedule as HP can be replenished. The healer is now effectively a "tank" (his extra "HP" can soak damage for anyone in the party). Then you can even throw in the ability to use an arbitrary amount of that healing as a combat action, and it won't be unbalancing--in fact, players will only use it if they're desperate or if there's a lull in the fighting.

I've actually done something like this in a game. We were using Reserve Points, and the healer could let players spend their own or his to heal, even in combat (with some restrictions).

I guess I just prefer 'per encounter' to 'per downtime.' I'm also not sure I want healing to equivalence tanking in quite that way.

You might want to give a little more thought to combat healing, though.(snip)

Wow, that's a lot of thought you just did for me there. I'm going to have to take a closer look at that. Being able to turn healing into tactical choices would be cool. There could very well be both combat and noncombat healing Powers which operate under different rules.

[Ecureuil_Diabolique]

1192277778[/unixtime]]
That's pretty much right. If at all possible, x=1, though.

So abilities work something akin to spheres, but except for spells they give you an option. And since everything will be level appropriate, by level 20 you'll have 60 powers with about 20 scales/new options. Am I right?

[Iaimeki]

1192211012[/unixtime]]Ability Scores
This is easy. You just have a Power or two for each Ability. If a character is strong, they choose the Strength Power, and if a character is agile, they take the Dexterity Power. Each of those Powers come with a list of specific benefits, which scale with level one way or another.

Really, if you go this route, you're going to want to split up the D&D abilities horizontally (by taking the manifold functions for each ability score and separating them) and possibly vertically too. It's important to realize that while ability scores have some explicit features, like the Str bonus to weapon damage, there are many others that are buried in the rest of the system, such as the paladin's divine grace and Weapon Finesse's effect on Dex.

1192211012[/unixtime]]Classes
Classes are easy, too. So, when I mentioned above that at each Level, a character gets three Powers? One of them must be a combat Power, and one of them must be a noncombat Power (I’ll get to the third one later). Well, for each of those arenas, players are encouraged to pick a theme and stick with it. I’d use the ‘themes are cool’ form of encouragement, but you could use prerequisites or something. There you go, it now feels like characters have Classes.

Prerequisites in a level-based system are weird, except for abilities that subsume their prerequisites. (Example: if, to get the ability to ignore concealment, you have to take an ability that lets you reroll it first.) Here's why:

You have an ability, call it A, that's a prerequisite for another one, call it B. If abilities don't scale with level, then there's no way to know what level is appropriate for B, because different characters may take different paths to it, so prerequisites break the whole level model. This is actually bad and doesn't work.

If abilities do scale with level, the effect is more subtle, and more of the nature that prerequisites create de facto classes. B's having A as a prerequisite is an opportunity cost for characters who would not otherwise take A, but not an opportunity cost for characters who want to take A; this breaks the symmetry with other abilities, so that if B is stronger than those abilities, characters for whom A is useful anyways are too powerful, while if B is weaker than the others, characters for whom A isn't useful are too weak. If one rebuts this latter case with, "Then just don't take B if A isn't useful!" that means only characters that want to take A will ever take B--but this has created a de facto class called, "Characters who want to take A."

The current system you have is a skill-based, not a class-based, system. It's not going to feel like a class-based system. If this isn't a problem for you, it's not a problem. If you want classes, you might be able to create de facto classes using prerequisites, but the balancing will probably be quite difficult.

1192211012[/unixtime]]Feats
In D&D, Feats are supposed to be how your character is different from everyone else who has your race/class combo. They’re what makes you the Spiked Chain fighter, or the super-Enchanter, or whatever. They fail in practice, but the idea is good.

Remember that third Power every level? That’s what this is for. That’s where a Paladin, whose ‘class’ themes are, for example, Tank/Healer, would pick up his Detects, his Smites, and his Mounted Combat.

You get one every level, choosing either a combat Power or a noncombat Power each time, and you have to keep the number of combat and noncombat Powers as even as possible. (Maybe you don’t even have to keep them that even, or at all even, that would be a playtest issue) The point is that you have half as many out-of-theme powers as you do in-theme powers.

In a skill-based system, is this necessary? If there are enough Powers to choose from, I can't see that any two characters will look at all similar in the details unless they deliberately choose to. If there were actual rails for characters, I could see the point, but without them, I just don't see this as a necessity.

1192211012[/unixtime]]Equipment
So, there are two ways to do equipment, magic or otherwise. The first is to give characters some of their capabilities externally, which can be handled well (Book of Gears) or poorly (Wealth by Level). The second is to incorporate equipment into Powers, which is, unsurprisingly, what I favor.

So, we just assume that a character with Climb has crampons at low level, and boots of wall-walking at higher level, and so on; we also assume that a character with Use Rope just has rope at low level, and magic rope at higher level, and so on; and that it’s already accounted for in those Powers’ effects.

Similarly, when a character has Martial Weapon Proficiency, it’s assumed that they have a sword instead of a stick or knife. Maybe that kind of Power has a modular effect, where swords have a to hit bonus, axes have a damage bonus, and the character has some opportunity to switch between them.

At the same time, maybe the guy with Climb doesn’t have equipment, but just has Spider-Man wall-crawling. Maybe the Paladin’s Smite Evil comes from his pure heart, and maybe it comes from his Holy Avenger. Sometimes it does matter, and sometimes it doesn’t. Maybe to keep in D&D genre, a certain proportion of Powers must be declared to be equipment-based.

How well this works depends a lot on two factors, genre and the importance of equipment in-game. Depending on genre, some characters genuinely don't care about equipment, either because all their power is inherent (see: superheroes who are mutants or aliens or whatever), or because they always have equipment available (because they're MacGyver or James Bond); others have equipment that's an essential part of their character, that they can lose only on a temporary basis (King Arthur and Excalibur); and still others have lots of equipment, no specific part of which defines their character, but the whole of which is essential (like Batman). Traditional D&D is closest to the last: in earlier editions, the only difference between fighters of the same level and race was their equipment list, most of the power of some classes comes from equipment, and being captured and stripped of magic items is a fate worse than death. I don't know how well it works when some people are playing the first option, and other people playing the last one. If you do want to allow people to do this, it will probably require careful balancing.

As a final note, depending on the implementation of the Powers, you may end up with a set of problems quite different than standard D&D's. D&D is all about eggshells-with-hammers because of the structure of the RNG and bonus accumulation. If you allow bonus accumulation in Powers and use the same RNG, you'll get the same ultraspecialists as in D&D. If you don't allow bonus accumulation, you'll probably experience a different potential problem: all characters will end up with a complement of passive powers that look similar. The reason is that Powers that require combat actions have diminishing returns, since you only have so many actions in a given combat, but passive powers have no such restriction unless you add one on top.

[Manxome]

1192280387[/unixtime]]I don't know... applicability imbalance is how people get their chances to shine. Besides, if Healing isn't a combat power, it's not being traded off for a combat power. Neither social or MacGyver noncombat options scale based on the amount of combat either, and I don't think that's a problem.

The thing is, healing is a combat power. It's only function is to allow your party to sustain more damage in combat without dying. Even if your party is going to sustain significant damage from traps, etc., you're currently only allowing damage from combats to be healed (since you can only heal after a combat and only up to the health you had when combat started).

Even if you eased up on those restrictions, if the normal use case involves taking most of your damage from combats, it's still obviously a combat-centric power.

If you classify it as a non-combat power, then players are going to be trading off between being better at combat and being better out-of-combat. I assumed that avoiding this was the entire point of splitting up the powers in the first place.

[Voss]

On the defenses thing, I was thinking of the current D&D set up with AC, Will, Reflex and Fortitude. You want those. All the time. The classes pretty much make you sacrifice one or two, and depending on what you play you either deal with that fact or play the multiclass max save game.

With your Powers set up, a character who chooses not to have all the defenses covered as soon as possible is... bad. Every Power he picks instead has got to be better than having a good chance a surviving a particular type of attack rather a poor chance.
In a way its similar to the problem of the storyteller games. Every time you advance an offensive power/skill, your opportunity cost is that you aren't advancing your defenses. And its fine and you can be totally awesome until something actually goes after your low defense and you die. Or conversely you have perfect defenses, but can't actually do anything.

Other random issues.
Taking away equipment. It could apply to other Powers too, but it stands out with equipment. There are situations that call for a character not to have weapons (social situations, prison, etc) if shit breaks out, other characters are fine, but the Equipment Guy has lost x% of his abilities (which actually goes down as his level goes up if every thing is level appropriate and you get 3/level), and is kinda boned.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Hm, lots of text. I'm going to refrain from quoting to keep this manageable. In order, then...

Ecurial Diabolique:
That's the gist, but I'm actually not sure if it's correct in detail. Some Powers scale by adding new and better abilities, so that 'Bamf' begins with Blink, goes to Dimension Door, and keeps going to Teleport, Teleport Without Error, Plane Shift, etc. Some Powers would be like Sneak Attack or Designate Opponent, where they do their job all the time just by having the associated numbers be big enough.

Iaimeki on Ability Scores:
I see two ways to handle Ability Scores' broad-but-shallow contributions. The first is to have 'Strength' give a +x bonus to 'Strength-based' effects and codify those effects, be they damage, bar-bending, whatever. Then Divine Grace and Diplomacy would naturally synergize with Charisma, because they would be labelled 'Charisma-based' effects. The other way is to divide those sorts of things more thoroughly, where Divine Grace is just 'awesome saving throws' regardless of whether or not you have Charisma, and Weapon Finesse is just 'more damage' whether or not you have Dexterity. Right now I'm leaning toward the first.

Iaimeki on Classes:
The point is that the game can simulate the feel of classes, if the player chooses. If I wanted to enforce a more rigid 'feels like D&D,' I'd draw up a list of 'Class X takes these 20 Powers in exactly this order' for each of the classes. I'm actually happier with more freedom of choice, including the choice to follow particular themes (or not). If I sit down with a group, I'll either bring pregens or request themes, and my group will probably be on the same page as I am in that regard.

Iaimeki on Feats:
You are correct that in a freewheeling potluck approach to character creation, this is just another Power per level. I'm fine with that.

Iaimeki on Accumulation:
Thank you for enunciating this! Yes, that definitely merits consideration.

Manxome on Healing:
All out-of-combat powers can be used to benefit combat encounters. Social people can bypass combat, deprive their opponents of allies, and acquire allies for themselves. Diviners can bypass combat, or acquire information that tilts the balance significantly. Macgyvers can also do all sorts of combat-influencing stuff. The point is that these Powers give you actions you don't use in combat. This is usually because they're ineffective on an in-combat time scale.

Voss on Defenses:
This also is definitely important and merits . My first impulse is just to scale defense differently. So while the default offense is fail, and Powers bring that up; the default defense is decent, and Powers bring that to awesome. So if you take the 'I Don't Get Mind-Controlled' defense, then you don't get mind-controlled ever, but even with no 'Axe-Resistance,' even a maxed-out axeman (of your level) still has to hit you at least twice before you go down. Then you just have enough avenues of attack that spreading out to cover them all isn't doable. There's probably a hole in there somewhere, though.

Iaimeki and Voss on Equipment:
I see two angles to come at equipment issues from, and I think they work concurrently.

First, I'm thinking that everyone has to pick some Powers which are equipment-based. Maybe it's 1/3, so it's the same proportion at all levels. That's telling them 'pick which Powers you can live without if you get thrown in a dungeon.' I could put on extra restrictions, like 'most powerful offense option,' so dungeon escapes involve a greater reliance on out-of-combat abilities, or not if I didn't care.

Second, equipment-based Powers could be traded out for related powers at appropriate opportunities. So a Fighter can switch between weapons in combat for somewhat different benefits, and a Wizard can use his spellbook out of combat to get himself thinking about paralyzation instead of fire for very different benefits; but the Paladin can't use his pure heart to smite anything but Evil. That can never be taken from him, but he can't trade it for hatin' on Scalykind or whatever.

Now, option 2 might be attractive enough to work all by itself. Somebody could play a classic 'helpless without book or components' Wizard, but be versatile like a Wizard. Similarly, someone could play a Monk, who's never helpless, but less flexible. My instinct is that that kind of gambling with your screentime against the possibility of no-item situations might be bad for the play experience and that a fixed proportion is better.


Thanks, all. Very useful thoughts. Keep it coming.

[Manxome]

1192322812[/unixtime]]Manxome on Healing:
All out-of-combat powers can be used to benefit combat encounters. Social people can bypass combat, deprive their opponents of allies, and acquire allies for themselves. Diviners can bypass combat, or acquire information that tilts the balance significantly. Macgyvers can also do all sorts of combat-influencing stuff. The point is that these Powers give you actions you don't use in combat. This is usually because they're ineffective on an in-combat time scale.

Those are all story-dependent examples, while healing works all the time. I'm also assuming that those are not intended to be the primary functions of those abilities.

But regardless, if your rule is that anything that isn't actually used during combat gets classified as "non-combat," then long-lasting buffs, powers that let you set up ambushes, etc. are all going to get put in the same category as powers that let you gather information, kick in doors, and do other plot-oriented stuff. And frankly, that's stupid, because a spell you ritually cast on yourself every morning that lets you hit for +X damage is functionally equivalent to a special attack style that does +X damage compared to a regular attack.

Yes, plot-affecting abilities may give you circumstantial benefits to fighting, because the plot affects who you have to fight and when. Combat abilities may also affect the plot, because being able or unable to defeat a particular opponent will change the directions in which the plot can advance.

But the point for separating combat and non-combat abilities--at least the one I've seen previously discussed on this forum--is to ensure that everyone has ways to meaningfully contribute to all the major parts of the game. And healing, as you've outlined it, contributes to the combat part primarily (if not exclusively), whether it's an action you take during combat or not.

[Fuzzy_logic]

Actually, a healing power that never helped you win a particular fight, just let you fight more fights, could be a noncombat power. It wouldn't add to your boss-killing, but would, like stealth or diplomacy, reduce your odds of being worn down by mooks.

[Manxome]

If an ability whose sole function is to cause you to have more combat resources left after a battle than you otherwise would (and has precisely zero direct plot-influencing power) is a "non-combat" power, then I apparently require someone to explain to me exactly what the intended distinction is.

Is a fireball a non-combat power because it's only useful against groups of mooks and not a single, powerful boss monster?

[angelfromanotherpin]

But regardless, if your rule is that anything that isn't actually used during combat gets classified as "non-combat," then long-lasting buffs, powers that let you set up ambushes, etc. are all going to get put in the same category as powers that let you gather information, kick in doors, and do other plot-oriented stuff.

My point is that anything can be used to in-combat advantage. There's no way around that, and healing isn't special because it can. If the party diplomat convinces the enemy's Ogre mercenaries to desert or switch sides, that's a major in-combat advantage.

Powers which set-up an ambush have to be non-combat, because if you're in combat, it's too late to set up an ambush. Teleport effects are very powerful ambush-enablers, but I'm not calling a one-minute casting-time Teleport a combat ability.

And frankly, that's stupid, because a spell you ritually cast on yourself every morning that lets you hit for +X damage is functionally equivalent to a special attack style that does +X damage compared to a regular attack.

Long-lasting buffs are combat abilities, because they're essentially passive bonuses, like Weapon Specialization. No-one is spending their action in combat going "Weapon Specialization... activate!" If you do more damage, I don't care if it's because you pray to your sword every morning or because you instinctively strike for weak points.

If an ability whose sole function is to cause you to have more combat resources left after a battle than you otherwise would (and has precisely zero direct plot-influencing power) is a "non-combat" power, then I apparently require someone to explain to me exactly what the intended distinction is.

The distinction really is which abilities are useful in a combat timeframe, and which aren't. It's that simple.

Healing is not incapable of influencing the plot. Restoring a giant's sight, lifting a plague from a community, or curing the slow poisoning of a noble, are all perfectly acceptable healing-related activities which definitely have plot-impact.

Healing functions like the always-applicable but less-effective version of every other non-combat ability. If you can't disarm the trap, you walk through it, and the healer takes some of the sting out of it; if you can't divine and avoid the ambush, you walk into it, but it doesn't hurt as bad if you have a healer; and so on. Healing is also boring, but some people just want to be pointed at problems.