The Gaming Den

So against my better judgement I'm going to try to revive our long standing goal of actually writing a complete D&D clone. The newest edition is abandonware and Pathfinder is in the "Nations of the setting you don't give a shit about" part of it's life cycle. If not now then when else are we going to make our move.

So I figured we'd throw ideas against that wall and see if they stick into the skeleton that we're willing do devote energy into fleshing out. With that in mind I have some ideas but I'm willing to discard/compromise them in that name of actually getting something done.

Idea 1) let's not get too crazy here: the more we can copy paste from the d20 srd the better. As much as some of us want to deconstruct TTRPGs through the lens of a fantasy heartbreaker we're writing for an audience that considers Next a respectable work of game design. We want something that looks familiar to D&D fans who aren't familiar with our long running discourse.

Idea 2) we should use Mistborn Tiers: a while back I floated the idea of dividing up D&D in to four tiers instead of the usual 3. Levels 1-3 was expert tier 4-9 was heroic 10-15 was paragon and levels 16-21 was epic. This is less of a design decision but more of a way to make the actual process of writing the game easier. A lot of d20 inspired heartbreakers (including 3e when you get down to it) fall down because they try to write all 20 levels of content at once. Designing the game one tier at a time also cuts down the work that needs to be done before we have something playtestable.

But yeah let's hear peoples ideas.

You really shouldn't use those stupid tiers.

For "backwards compatibility" if that is a goal at all, you should use 1-5/6-15/16-20 because that way you have a natural way to fit in PrCs.

If you aren't using backwards compatibility at all, then there is no reason to design your game with different length tiers.

[*] add character backgrounds
[*] "adventurer" or "hero" is a gestalt of fighter and rogue and substitutes every mention of these two classes. Its power source is "tinkering": Disable Device and Use Magic Device are used to interfere with the other magical systems, keeping this class competitive.
[*] split the wizard class into several beguiler / dread necromancer like classes.
[*] make sensible monster types, moving things that shouldn't be at the type to sub-tags. So undeads and constructs lose critical immunity, which goes to the amorphous tag.
[*] in this same vein, monster types should have tied BAB / saves / HD. Monster "roles" could be created for these. So you could have something like an "undead attacker" to make a Death Knight that can hit things and doesn't need like 20 HDs.
[*] realize that not every HD should have skill / feat points. Some beings are simply very large, so they should have some hit points representing just their chassis.
[*] try to stick to an equality of CR and HD, whenever possible.

nockermensch wrote: [*] realize that not every HD should have skill / feat points. Some beings are simply very large, so they should have some hit points representing just their chassis.
[*] try to stick to an equality of CR and HD, whenever possible.

I fear that those two things are mutually incompatible. There is a substantial difference between someone who has a bunch hit dice because he's huge and tough, and one that has a bunch of hit dice because he's a high-level wizard.

One thing that pathfinder did really well, IMO, is their hybrid classes. They seem to actually have a niche in the game mechanic world, AND the fluff world. The warpriest is a 3/4BAB 2/3CL cleric, who mainly gets to cast self buffs as a swift action whenever he wants to. The skald is a competent gish who gives rage powers to all of his allies. The bloodrager is a barbarian with the "my powers come from my tentacled-face dad" modifier, and is generally more interesting than the superstition->spell sunder->beast totem barbarian that seems to be the standard. The kinetistist is all kinds of cool, except for being balanced with the "at will powers are crazy op" mindset.

Classes that are "you get extra feats" or "you rage" or "you get skills and sneak attack" are just too boring.

I also don't think that the current wizard is a problem. The problem with the wizard has always been its spell list. Intelligent re-balancing of spells would do a lot to fix that. Pathfinder seems to take one step forward (nerfing web, save or suck spells) and two steps back(the pit spells, blood money, simulacrum, adding ref-targeting save or suck) in this regard.

Remember it's the core spells that are the power without limit despite tons of rewritings. Calling, divination, can't touch this all create tons of problems.

Certainly want a what to fix list up sooner rather than later.

I've always hated the lack of rules depth (play variety) to the amount of rules (pretty horrendous) in DnD and similar. Provide more meaningful options or streamline.

hyzmarca wrote:

nockermensch wrote: [*] realize that not every HD should have skill / feat points. Some beings are simply very large, so they should have some hit points representing just their chassis.
[*] try to stick to an equality of CR and HD, whenever possible.

I fear that those two things are mutually incompatible. There is a substantial differnce between someone who has a bunch hit hit deice because he's huge and tough, and one that has a bunch of Hit Dice because he's a high-level wizard.

The clear actual answer is to never ever ever ever ever ever give HD above CR, and to instead give whatever else they need.

More average damage? Str.
More HP, Give them either Con or a Size bonus to HP (That already exists for Constructs, would it really end the universe if big undead had more HP too? Dragons and Giants are going to lose out on their way too many HD, so size just compensates for that).
Better saves? Well they have stats for that.

One thing but not others? Well fuck, give them an always on insight to AB, give them greater Resistance or Superior Resistance as a 1/day personal only SLA.

You need someone who can make decisions and end the endless debates of circles. Maybe you, maybe two or three people, but you need to figure that out.

Lets figure out diplomacy. Lets fight for 400 pages about diplomacy. Lets forget about this and go talk about other stuff?

I'm not sure those tiers mean a lot. If you're porting in expectations from D&D 3.5, then 4-9 is actually a very big difference. A level 4 character has 2nd level spells. A level 9 character has 5th level spells. Those two characters can go on wildly different adventures. When I took a crack at writing a bunch of base classes using Frank's list of resource mechanics (which ultimately stalled on the wizard, because fuck the wizard spell list), I dropped the last 5 levels (because who gives a shit about 16+, really) and then handed out a new level of spells* at 1, 4, 7, 10, and 13. That felt right, progression-wise; I was pretty satisfied with that call.

*Or whatever the fuck that particular's classes abilities were called.

I think there was a thread about this already before 5e came out, but a new D&D certainly needs to have the options for playable races sorted out. Both in that a lot (dozens, maybe) of concepts need to be catered to adequately at level 1, and that ideally there won't be "killer app" races for a give class.

Which is probably, like, twenty-two minutes of design work, tops.

If this were so easy, wouldn't Frank and K have finished the Tomes?

Mord wrote:If this were so easy, wouldn't Frank and K have finished the Tomes?

Quite, they've even gone on record as saying it would take writing 500-900 pages (no exaggeration) just to balance 3rd edition. Hence why you need to start anew in lot of places.

For one thing, do you want Rocket-tag to be the normal thing in a new Fantasy Game? One needs to be aware of the rules that hurt the non-caster dudes, not allowing them to do cool things before we get to abilities. I for one, would like Sword beams, using Shields to block Dragon Fire, deflect lightning with swords.

Make evocation not suck.

You will remove half the problems with people spamming save or dies if damage isn't a complete waste of time and you don't spend all your level-appropriate spell slots to get rid of a troll. Granted, this moves combat into the range of rocket tag...but if we have a bunch of "save or be paralysed for the rest of your short life" how is that any different?

Get off the daily resource paradigm.

Figure out how many rounds a combat is supposed to take.

Combat already lasts long enough in most games; and a fight that is more than a couple of rounds is unrealistic; and gets boring.

A combat should last at least 0, and up to 5, rounds. The "0" round being surprise, or ambush; or sniping; or something. After the 5th round; only the most hardcore wargamers are not going to want to go and play Smash.

CapnTthePirateG wrote:You will remove half the problems with people spamming save or dies if damage isn't a complete waste of time and you don't spend all your level-appropriate spell slots to get rid of a troll. Granted, this moves combat into the range of rocket tag...but if we have a bunch of "save or be paralysed for the rest of your short life" how is that any different?

You can get around this by making evocation spells give you a full combat worth of attacks, either due to being a multi round movable effect like Wall of Fire or Acid Cloud, or by directly giving people multiple attacks with the same spell, like Chill Touch or Produce Flame

Possibly relevant: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2i52k?Evoca ... ower-level

Is backwards compatibility a goal here?

radthemad4 wrote: Is backwards compatibility a goal here?

I don't know that it should be. I think not being chained to a bunch of legacy stuff, nor making new players feel like they have to track down books from the early aughts to understand everything, would be beneficial.

The biggest barrier to making a new edition is making a new set of challenges. Once you've put in new challenges, your game isn't backward compatible but also designing player side abilities isn't terribly difficult. Once you know when a type of adventure or challenge is possible, you know what the combined player character toolkit needs to be able to handle.

-Username17

Regarding tiers of adventuring, I think it's more natural to think in a divide like 1-6 / 7-12 / 13-18. This has the advantage to split spells/powers/maneuvers in three nice tiers too. If you need more detail, split each tier in two:

heroic tier:
1-3 : little different from commoners, you hunt giant rats in the sewers or take down an ogre with luck and/or planning. Little to no political clout, but you can as well become the hero of a small village. Even if you specialized in Craft: Cakes you can lose bakery challenges to random peasants if they roll high and you low.

4-6 : notably more hardcore than commoners, you can take on entire orc camps or hunt a manticore or chimera. If you need to, you can find a way to fly (tame a pegasus, cast Fly). This is more or less where most greek heroes stop. Enough political clout to be the champions of a large village or small town. By the end of this tier, if you're really specializing on something, you can push untrained commoners completely out of your RNG, so your dreams of being an unmatched basket-weaver become true here.

paragon tier:
7-9 : you don't feel threatened by commoners anymore, and can deal with armies of them. You have a reliable long term method of Flight and you can fight bands of giants or illithids. Enough political clout to control a small region. Planar factions take notice of you. This is the low power end for Mahabharata or Journey to the West heroes.

10-12: distance, both physical and planar, mean little to you by now. you can take on an ogre magi camp or a lich. You probably bring nearby regions to your influence.

epic tier:
13-15 : your adventures by this point are something out of Doctor Strange or Sandman. When you fight, you force somebody like Arjuna to pay attention. If you care about this, you can rule a country in a prime material world, or be a high ranked agent of a planar faction.

16-18 : you win D&D.

Grek wrote: You can get around this by making evocation spells give you a full combat worth of attacks, either due to being a multi round movable effect like Wall of Fire or Acid Cloud, or by directly giving people multiple attacks with the same spell, like Chill Touch or Produce Flame

How about you give people more spell slots, but make non-evocation spells weaker? Make glitterdust a 5-foot radius, color spray stuns for 2 turns, maybe 1, etc?

Strung Nether wrote:How about you give people more spell slots, but make non-evocation spells weaker?

Well, that's the other option. Instead of bringing Evocation up to rocket tag standards, nerf everything else until dealing 1d6/level damage is a level-appropriate daily power. The thing is, it's been done, it was called 4th Edition D&D, and it doesn't satisfy people who want any sort of power fantasy out of their, well, fantasy.

I'm not saying it can't be done correctly. 4E had a lot of reasonable top-level design decisions that fell apart because the designers couldn't playtest their way through a paper bag, let alone the Tomb of Horrors. If you want to make that game, go ahead. We don't bag on WoD because its characters are Hawkeye tier, we bag on it because it's a pile of hot garbage that doesn't satisfy its design goals.

I like the Tiers idea. I think the game doesn't need the granularity of 20 levels and would instead benefit a lot from having 3 or 4. Where the table picks the kind of game it wants to play and just plays at that power level. I think a game of thronesy low level, a Conany sword and sorcery mid level, and a anime high power level is all people want for any story they can tell. No one has ever played a by the rules 16th level D&D game so don't try at all to replicate that.

I also agree that a thing needed is for someone, perfectly plausibly you Mistborn, is to have the cahones to declare when arguments are finished and move to the next problem. Someone needs to be able to say "ok Wizards are a WoF class now" and move the discussion onto designing it rather than expecting everyone to agree that the design choice is good before ever laying pen to paper

Kaelik wrote:You really shouldn't use those stupid tiers.

For "backwards compatibility" if that is a goal at all, you should use 1-5/6-15/16-20 because that way you have a natural way to fit in PrCs.

If you aren't using backwards compatibility at all, then there is no reason to design your game with different length tiers.

DSMatticus wrote:I'm not sure those tiers mean a lot. If you're porting in expectations from D&D 3.5, then 4-9 is actually a very big difference. A level 4 character has 2nd level spells. A level 9 character has 5th level spells. Those two characters can go on wildly different adventures. When I took a crack at writing a bunch of base classes using Frank's list of resource mechanics (which ultimately stalled on the wizard, because fuck the wizard spell list), I dropped the last 5 levels (because who gives a shit about 16+, really) and then handed out a new level of spells* at 1, 4, 7, 10, and 13. That felt right, progression-wise; I was pretty satisfied with that call.

*Or whatever the fuck that particular's classes abilities were called.

Using Mistborn tiers obviously means that we are doing some rejiggering of how the game scales. Like 3e escalates so quickly that we often don't even bother writing content for the last 3-5 levels. Fvck in 3e you have Shadows at CR 3. There's a good argument that things need to reigned in a bit. At least to the point that Conan can stay in the fellowship until level 9 before he has to rethink his character concept.

Also I'd maintain that levels 1-3 are different enough to get their own tier. Unless you can called the rusty sword and giant rats escapades that low level D&D characters traditionally get up too "heroic tier" with a straight face, and you lose some "classic D&D" if you cut that stuff out 4e style.

I would suggest having a basement tier of some sort below the starting character tier, and explicitly stating that the basement tier is for half-trained farmboys slaying giant rats. That way, DMs feel like they are "supposed" to start games at the start of heroic tier where you can actually fight orcs and hell hounds instead of being "supposed" to start at rat-slaying tier. You'd keep the support of that power level for people who actually want it, and for NPCs who should be way less powerful than important people, but most games would start at an actually fun tier.

Problematic CRs are already found for you. If it does something crazy like 9th level spells without cost, it's already in the power-gaming summon/call this lists. If it's ridiculously lethal, there's lists for that. There's some can-kill-anything-it-can-hug creatures at the higher CRs that can't deal with stealth, flight, ranged to be found and fixed.

Your tiers are pretty self-explanatory, but you haven't mentioned how you're changing spell/stuff/power-in-general acquisition, so it's just lip flapping til then.

Also what are your thoughts for how many rules systems there should be? Do you need a rules set for cooking, or god help you, different sets for pan frying, roasting or boiling? Just not sure how impossible to call the job yet