The Gaming Den

Boolean wrote:You aren't using "the bulk of the pre-written material" andto claim so is laughable."

This derision can be handled in a few ways. I will try the high road.

I am trying to build a new system from the ground up that does what I want it to with an eye to finding means, for each change I make, to reuse the bulk of the prewritten material. If I cannot do this, then I fail, and since I am not spending my time simply to fail, then by definition I am going to do this, even if at this point it seems to you this goal is not being met. I concede that writing all new material is neither practical nor conducive to acceptance of the system as a whole and I further understand that this makes my task harder than it would be if I were building from the ground up and never looking back. The fact I have taken on this challenge and expressed a small sliver of a number of sweeping changes should not automatically lead anyone to the conclusion that I have failed.

I think, for every change I have thus far presented, at least as it relates to the fighter class currently under examination, that I am meeting this goal. Furthermore, the objections and points raised by others here are readily addressable using the tools already at hand and I see no reason why I will not be able to finish the creation of a mundane melee system that meets my goals. Will the classes or monsters be exactly the same or reused literally in every sense? No and nowhere do I claim that to be the case. But I believe for the game to be both interesting and playable, it has to offer the same types of foes and challenges on a relative scale as 3.5 does today and it has to in some way be able to be in some readily consumable way related to the preprinted material such that a rapid conversion is possible.

It is a fair point to criticize what I have out as incomplete, inadequate and unbalanced for mundane vs mundane melee combat. It is another thing to criticize work that I haven't even published yet (the core of the magic system and how it relates to melee) as proof that my design goals have failed.

Let's not get sidetracked here. Ignore any douchebaggery. I'm interested in hearing more.

How are you going to deal with the HPsplosion that takes place at first level? Will you increase base weapon damage?

LL wrote:The fact I have taken on this challenge and expressed a small sliver of a number of sweeping changes should not automatically lead anyone to the conclusion that I have failed.

No. The fact that your goals are logically inconsistent is what draws me to the conclusion that you have and will have failed according to the goals you have set for yourself. That does not mean that I regard your project as a failure. It just means that I believe quite strongly that you're going to have to adjust your goals so that it will be achievable.

The moment you've made it so that characters of Level X cannot be expected to walk into a prewritten 3e adventure for level X characters, fight CR X monsters out of the book, and get the level X treasure you have a a setup of Paizo-like proportions, where the characters are simply not compatible with the regular D&D rules. When characters get to "Level 18" then the DM needs to be able to pick up Bastion of Broken Souls and run it as-is or you can't reasonably claim that your system has compatibility.

So the first encounter is a Cathezar and a Death Slaad. The next combat encounter is 2 Nalfeshnees. And so on and so forth. This is not negotiable or anything, this is a straight fact. The bare minimum bar for D&D 3e compatibility is that you're supposed to be able to go through two enemies who each have 175 hit points and can cast feeblemind and unholy aura at will as a speed bump. Since you've stated that it is your explicit design intent that players won't be doing that, it's not fucking compatible.

That doesn't mean that it's bad. It just means that the thing you're envisioning is not compatible with existing D&D materials. A fact which you yourself specifically admit during some of your moments of sober reflection. Monsters cast spells out of the PHB, and worse they have unique special abilities that are equivalent to those spells (see Gorgons). Monsters have a fuck tonne of hit points. If you want to make a game that doesn't have the over-the-top magic spells and doesn't throw three digit damage totals around, it's not D&D. Doesn't mean that t s bad. Just that it isn't D&D and you shouldn't shackle yourself with the idea that somehow it is.

-Username17

To further Frank's point, what you're aiming for seems to be "convertible from" in some way, instead of actually "compatible with". You still get tons of material to pull from and rebuild the game world with, but you have to do work on it before you can use it. That it is by no means compatible in the same sense that UKG's Complete Fighter* supplement is compatible with 3.x, but much closer to the way that 3.x was convertible from 2.x using the guide. Using "compatible" in the sense that you want to stretches the word beyond its standard and accepted meaning, and that's going to get you some crap around here.

* Not an indication of quality or a recommendation. Just the first one I found on drivethrurpg that would make a good example.

Lich-Loved,

I do apologize for having misread you -- I thought the game itself was supposed to be playable without magic; if you are planning to put magic into your game than some of my criticisms are irrelevant.

That said, I think the methodology of tarting with "fighting" and adding "magic" later is misguided and likely to end badly. You need to know whatmagic is doing mechanically in your system from the get-go or you're likely to find that the addition of magic disrupts the functioning of your other subsystems.

More importantly though you need to reflect on magic and what you want magic to be doing in the setting. D&D magic has a very long list of assumptions that come with it about what magic is and how it works; if you don't share them, neither the D&D spell list nor the monster manual will be of much use to you.

@Frank and TarkisFlux: Your points are well taken and I stand corrected. I am trying to build something convertible from D&D, not compatible with. I think Frank and K have done the "compatible with" in the Tomes. There isn't much one can do in the name of "compatibility to the point of using a pre-published adventure" that hasn't already been done or at least examined (I certainly don't have any ideas right off). I suppose a better way of stating my goal is that I want the monster list and spell list to be just as meaningful and flexible as they are today; I do not want to end up with 4e blandness and I want the lists to be understandable and convertible from the 3.5 standpoint, even if mechanically they operate differently. I will again say that the CR system is crap in 3.5 and monsters will need re-balancing in whatever this system will be called. I envision the existing monsters moving up or down the CR scale eventually based upon the capabilities of the "standard party".

@Boolean: Thanks. You too are right. I have the magic system in my pointy little head and actually got it so far along that I felt compelled to go and do the melee side before advancing it so that I could advance them together. It is hard to judge the whole by seeing only one warty part, so I owe a posting on the magic system, which I will put up shortly - I even have the post about 75% written but left off to work the melee items. I warn you now though, that you will be looking at raw design stuff and it is not going to be nearly good enough, but I hope it paints a picture of how I see the game unfolding.

@PR: I will provide more info on the melee system as soon as I can, but for now, look over the very raw magic system to see how I envision wizards playing a role in the game without throwing the spellbook's "coolness" out the window as they did in 4e.

Lich-Loved wrote:@Draco_Argentum: I guess to some degree, I am not certain why the Fire Giant is not a good touchpoint for this design. One of the core issues with D&D melee progression is that the brutes out-tough the fighter. If the Fire Giant isn't a suitable CR10 brute, what is?

Whatever you want to be. Remember, the tomes boosted the swordsman to the level of the monsters. You're explicitly doing the reverse and that means comparing to monsters who will have to change doesn't provide a comparison point. Simply put, you are writing a new game you don't need to shackle yourself to the levels assigned to 3.x monsters.

I envision the existing monsters moving up or down the CR scale eventually based upon the capabilities of the "standard party".

This is my point. You're trying to use a mutable object as a measuring stick. You should define what a standard party can do at each level first then make the characters able to do that. Write up a same game test for your planned system. If you don't have that you'll end up like 3.x where abilities get chucked in at levels that are wildly inappropriate. because you don't have a clear statement of when would be appropriate.

Draco_Argentum wrote:This is my point. You're trying to use a mutable object as a measuring stick. You should define what a standard party can do at each level first then make the characters able to do that. Write up a same game test for your planned system. If you don't have that you'll end up like 3.x where abilities get chucked in at levels that are wildly inappropriate. because you don't have a clear statement of when would be appropriate.

Absolutely correct. I was actually in the process of setting up same-game testing for the fighter when I decided I make the idea public here to determine if the idea had been tried before or if there was some other basic flaw in my thinking. I have learned a great deal and definitely have some things to think about.

Going back to making someone's combat prowess really matter to the point where they can take on level-appropriate opponents with their big swords and have a chance of winning, I believe there is a simple solution in the form of parrying.

We've got a straightforward mechanic in the system - BAB - that tells us the fundamental skill levels of all characters at "hitting stuff". Conan can parry or avoid *anything*, from tree trunks to blasts of eldritch fire, to clouds of poison gas. I think opposed attack rolls are the way to go to adequately reflect skill.

You can screw around with the numbers between classes to get the balance you're after. The number of times per round that one can counter or parry can also scale with level, or be a straightforward function of comparative level of inbound attacks. Conan against the Evil Wizard Marvin and his Multiple Mooks is played out with Conan having to make the choice between spreading his parrying ability out between lower-level attackers in order to survive getting to Marvin in the first place, or taking the pain as he plows through the footsoldiers so as to have the gumption remaining to bat away the incoming Death Rays from the main man.

Note that this wouldn't replace AC, because you decide whether or not to exert yourself to parry/avoid the inbound attack before it is resolved.

Tokens certainly are one way to track this, but I'd suggest that they were *allocated* on the basis of BAB, and that BAB is the basic resolving mechanic, because it's a constant reference to fighting skill.

Anyway, t'was just a few thoughts. I like the basic ideas a lot.