New Rulesystem ARRGS

I've been working on a new rule system for a while now that is loosely based on pathfinder and 3.5. Its called ARRGS (Action-Reaction Roleplaying Game System)

I've finished much of the basic work so i thought i would put it out there for critique and to see if anyone fancies playtesting it.

Its designed with simplification in mind so there should be less rolls and less maths involved (while still being complex enough to allow all the sandbox features that make pathfinder and 3.5 so amazing), i've also tried to allow more freedom so the classes and races are much more customisable. Finally, i'm hoping that low levels creatures remain challenging to high level characters (in greater numbers of course) so that the DM is not required to throw ever greater CR beasts at the players just to keep them interested.

Anyhow, here's the links for the separate docs. It is nowhere near finished but there should be enough there to create a character, give him some equipment and have a fight (as long as you don't mind creating a dwarf or human and fighting orcs).

I'll be updating the links on a weekly basis, maybe more often if i get some good suggestions.

Findings from playtests would be most helpful, but theorising is welcome also (for those of you that haven't a group to play with). I'm looking for suggestions to improve the system in finer details and help me make the rules clearer (i'm not naturally gifted with the written word unfortunately).

Classes

Combat

Conditions

Introduction

Monsters

Races

Skills

Spells

Feats

Weapons

Armour

Magic Items

Please let me know what you think. Ask anything if I've not made something clear enough (as i said before my writing skills aren't great) and if someone could give the rules a try and let me know how they went (even if its a one character versus one orc scenario) then I would be most grateful.

I'm aiming to make an alternative to 3.5 and pathfinder, something that sorts out the problems with those rule systems and at the same time keeps the flavour of them.

Following a bit of feedback from someone on Candlekeep who wanted some eastern type familiars, I've added the following class options to the wizard and druid (and Invested Companion for all classes with a companion creature).



Invested Companion: This class option may be selected more than once. The druid may select a race option for his companion creature (see Monster section) in place of a class option. This class option may be selected multiple times, each time the druid may select another race option for his companion creature.

The below are advanced class options (level 10+). The square parenthesis indicates the maximum number of times a character can take this class option. I'm going to apply that to all existing class options and limit most of them to 10 times (except for caster level).

Spell Battery Companion [5]: This class option may be selected more than once. A companion creature must have an Intelligence of 4+ before the wizard can select this class option. The wizard may grant his companion creature a +1 Class bonus to caster level. This increases the number of Spells Per Day the companion creature may cast. The companion only gains access to the Wizard class spell list with this class option. The companion gains access to higher level spells according to his caster level and the maximum level of spell slots he has available. This class option may be selected multiple times, each time it is selected the companion increases the Class bonus to caster level by +1.
Spirit Companion: This class option may be selected only once. The druid's companion becomes a possessing spirit able to inhabit any body that is the same as his original form. What this means is that when the companion creature is killed it gains the Incorporeal condition and may either be sent away to acquire a new body (taking 2d4 days) or remains with the druid until it comes across another creature that is the same as his original form (whereupon the companion possesses this new creature).

Updated all the documents. Made enchanting a skill. Sorted out the Magic Item framework.

Made magic items really expensive beyond +3

So as an example a potion costs 120 gp

A wand of magic missiles with 50 charges costs 1200 gp

A +1 magic weapon costs 8000 gp

A +2 magic weapon costs 28000 gp

A +3 magic weapon costs 52000 gp

A +4 magic weapon costs 216000 gp

For those that haven't the time to look at the documents or want a bit more info first here's a bit of an overview.

Classes and Races are more freeform now. Every class gets 2 class options per level. The class has a range of class options and they can pick anything they want. Crucially I have made Caster Level a class option so that you can have a wizard that doesn't actually cast spells, instead you could pick class options that make him an excellent scholar or have a load of spell like abilities. This means that for hybrid classes like the ranger, knight (think paladin and knight rolled into one), or bard you don't actually have to pick any spellcasting ability if you don't like the management of spells, there are plenty of other class options to fill out a full class. Also I got rid of the barbarian and gave the fighter rage as a class option instead.

Races are similar to classes. You have a base set of traits for the race and then a choice of 2 race options from a list. So if you are a dwarf you could pick to have +2 Constitution several times or give him heightened darkvision. Not every dwarf is excellent at crafting or good with axes or adept at fighting orcs, but they can be if you choose it.

The biggest change is to Magic. Spells are now attacks like melee and ranged attacks. They have a d20 attack roll compared against a defence value like AC or Reflex or Willpower (which also means there is no need for touch attacks anymore - its a Reflex save now). So all spells can score critical hits, can have enchanted wands that boost attack and damage rolls .
I also linked spells to spell level (instead of caster level) directly. A spell grants a +1 bonus per spell level or does 1d6 damage per spell level or heals 1d6 damage per spell level. That means I can remove a lot of spells that only vary by the amount of bonus or damage it does.
And there are only 3 spell lists. The wizard spell list, the cleric spell list, and the druid spell list. The various casting classes can cast from a mix of the spell lists (some gain access to more than one with some of their advanced class options - the sorcerer can cast spells from all three if desired).

One final thing involving magic and classes. There is only one Spells per Day progression and it is shared by all classes (yes even a ranger or bard can be a 20th level caster). Furthermore the sharing applies to multiclassing. You will only ever have one set of 1st level spells even if you can cast cleric, wizard, or druid spells, you can memorise any spell from any spell list you have access to into any spells per day slot you want (because spells are linked to spell level you can memorise them in any slot you wish). That means the headaches of multiple class spell lists is gone.

The idea is that all the classes have a lot more freedom than before. The martial classes have a variety of abilities they can pick from in any order. The casting classes need not be casting classes at all (the sorcerer functions quite nicely as a transformation class), and all classes are on an equal footing when it comes to combat as they all use an identical mechanic (the Attack roll).

This is just theory-crafting, but I've looked at a lot of systems like this (and played a few), so they tend to have the same issues. The big thing is that choices mean power, and unless you don't care about power, any freedom is just an illusion, so characters become much less broad than they would otherwise be.

Jumping in with the first thing I looked at, Dwarves have a number of interesting racial traits. Stability, Steadfast, and Stonecunning are all very flavorful abilities which make sense for a Dwarf. Unfortunately, anyone who cares about not dying will just pick up +2 Strength or +2 Con (or possibly +2 Wisdom) in place of any of those things.

If the Cleric class has some abilities which increase your spellcasting, and some abilities which let you turn undead, then you can expect the vast majority of players to invest points in the former but not the latter. Even if you pumped up Turn Undead so that 3/day you could instantly destroy all undead within 200 feet, it's still putting a situational ability into the same basket as your most-important-and-powerful ability, and asking people to choose.

It's incredibly difficult to balance a lot of different options. It's almost impossible to balance them when you ask players to allot the same resources between primary abilities and situational (or flavor) abilities. A method of dealing with this design dilemma is to offer separate pools of resources for primary and secondary abilities. As an example, you could give Dwarves the two primary traits to choose from +1 to a stat, +1 to hit/damage with certain weapons, and Diehard; then, you could grant three more traits to choose from Improved Darkvision, Stability, etc. That way, you can still include both major and minor traits within the system, and both types will actually be taken and used. (The alternative method would be to assign variable point costs to different abilities, but then you have to literally quantify the difference between +2 to your main stat and the ability to judge inclines.)

Well you have made good points and I can only address them in one way. Power players will always be power players, rules lawyers will always be rules lawyers, roleplayers will always be roleplayers. You can try and balance a system as much as you like but once it gets past 1st level it only becomes more and more unbalanced as you add things onto characters, monsters, etc. I agree a dwarf fighter would probably pick a +2 Str or +2 Con and the choice is up to him, but a dwarf wizard or rogue or druid will find less use from those stats and so would pick something else that does suit him.

I have made no attempt to balance the system beyond creating a fairly comprehensive framework for combat (and the other modules) that makes everybody use the same mechanics. I will be limiting most of the class options so they can be taken a maximum of 10 times (apart from caster level) so that should keep things from getting too ridiculous. However if a power player wants to be the best in combat then why spoil his fun by preventing him from taking Weapon Training 10 times. If a rules lawyer wants to be able to ignore Opportunity Attacks then why prevent him. Both characters will be very one dimensional single trick ponies but they will shine in their particular field and that is what makes the player happy. You cannot create a character that is good at everything using any system, and this is no different. What it does allow is the freedom to create a character to whatever concept you wish (rather than multiclassing or trawling through a hundred archtypes or paths etc to find something that vaguely fits what you want). A fighter that prefers to fight in light armour and using a rapier can be just as effective as a raging berserker that wields a two handed axe and wears platemail. Spellcasters and martial characters use the same attack mechanic with the same bonuses tied to attribute scores and magic weapons so that a wizard with Int 16 is as good as a fighter with Str 16 (the wizard will do more damage with spells but those spells are limited in number). I expect someone taking a cleric class to decide what kind of cleric he wants to be, does he want to be an undead hunter, if so then Channel Energy is going to be for him, does he want to be a divine servant then spellcasting is probably going to be for him, if he wants to be a holy warrior then he could choose the Smite ability and other class options that boost his fighting prowess. It is the same for any class, decide what you want to be and then build it out of the class options available.

The class options are really very similar in their mechanic. They all add a +1 bonus to a particular statistic (or statistics) or grant an ability (that usually adds a +2 bonus to a statistic) with a limited number of uses. The difference is really down to the preference of the player. If a character wants lots of abilities and doesn't mind the micromanagement of his daily uses then that's up to him. If a character wants to purely boost his attacks and have no special abilities then again that is up to him. Both are possible and since the bonuses are all the same (+1) the unbalancing effect of them is lessened. More importantly the monsters have the same resources available to them (if the DM wants them).


I myself never liked point pools and its a major headache trying to ensure everything is of equal value (or assigning a value to it using the points) as its all relative. I prefer to let people choose what they want. There is no level based progression of statistics beyond what a player chooses to augment. The base of a character's effectiveness is based on his ability scores and that remains nearly constant throughout the game. So if you ignore all combat boosts you will still be able to hit a target with a sword or a spell. Monsters operate on the same rules and so an orc always has a slight chance of hitting a fighter no matter his level, likewise a lowly commoner has a slight chance of hitting a dragon. Effectiveness in combat should not drop to zero no matter what class options are chosen.

As long as you're aware of the issue, then that's something. You should keep in mind that a poorly balanced system (or a system where balance isn't a concern) might put off a lot of potential players, though.

Players don't just fall into the categories of power-gamer and role-player. Most people are somewhere in between, and it's just a question of how much power you're sacrificing in order to get the RP concept you want to play. One of the strengths of 4E and 5E is that there are a wide variety of characters you could make, and as long as you remember to boost your main stat, the character is probably going to be okay.

With a system as open-ended as yours, you might get some pure power-gamers and some pure role-players. (Both groups have reason to like an open system.) The problem is, if you get a mixed group of power-gamers and role-players, then the role-players might not have fun when their cool RP characters can't contribute in any way because the power character can do everything that the RP character can, but better.

And then you force an uncomfortable situation on anyone in the middle of the spectrum, over how powerful they should make the character. You don't want to be so strong that everyone else feels worthless, but you don't want to be weak enough that everyone dies when you could have easily stopped it. And it can be really hard to tell what the baseline expectation of the system is supposed to be, when you're capable of making any character between Superman and Jimmy Olson.

Well from what I can theorise a mixture of power gamer and roleplayer would be an ideal person for a game with freedom of choice.

However lets assume the worst case scenario and we have a group consisting of a roleplayer and a power game.

The roleplayer takes no class options to boost his stats and takes no class options to boost his combat statistics (only skill boosting class options).

So the power gamer has an 18 base stat in say Strength (because he cheated of course) he gets a total of +7 to that attribute by 20th level which gives him Strength 25 (and a +7 bonus to attack and damage). He then takes 10 class options in Weapon Training (giving him a total of +17 to attack and damage).

The roleplayer has a 16 base stat in say Intelligence (because he is a wizard but is playing a scholar). He gets a minimum of +2 to Int by 20th level assuming he puts all his other stat boosts into other stats. That gives him +4 bonus to attack and damage.

So they come up against a balor (using the base 3.5 edition monster - I haven't written a balor yet but it will probably be very different) 35 Str (+12), 25 Dex (+7), 31 Con (+10), Int 24 (+7), Wis 24 (+7), Cha 26 (+8). Using my vulnerability system this balor is vulnerable to Cold Iron and Sonic and Damage Resistance 17. Its AC is +10 (-1 Size, +7 Ability, +4 Race).

Now lets assume this is a regular balor (so no race options). The fighter's +17 damage is almost completely nullified by its Damage Resistance (unless he has a cold iron weapon) and the fighter needs to roll a 3 to hit. So he hits loads but unless he knows what its vulnerability is then there is only limited damage he can do.

The wizard needs to roll a 16 to beat the balors AC, an 18 to beat its Fortitude, a 13 to beat its Reflex and a 14 to beat its Willpower (assuming he uses spells). The wizard is by no means completely ineffective even though he completely ignored anything combat related. Now assuming he focused on the Arcana skill then he can quickly discover the balor's vulnerability and help the fighter to chop up the balor in a few rounds. If he focused on the Heal skill or Diplomacy skill then he can remove a number of conditions from the fighter and heal his damage.

Obviously if this was a boss fight then the outcome would be different (a boss monster can have a number of race options that work like class options for the characters), but they are only singular encounters and the character can always provide buffs or aid other characters actions or again find out vulnerabilities or provide healing with skill checks. The above encounter also assumes no magic items whatsoever which again is the worst case scenario. I personally would not provide a magic item above +3 to any of the characters but that would provide a tremendous boost to the wizard and make the fighter almost never miss.

Of course that is just how I play the game, it would be helpful if I could get others to playtest the game as GM's and players so I can find out how other people run it and what issues they encounter.

First - congrats on accomplishing a lot of hard work!

Second, someone reading this over quickly, in the Introduction and Combat sections (like me), might be confused about Reactions. In the intro, reactions are static numbers. In combat, sometimes they're d20 rolls. And in the first action economy list (standard, movement, etc.) they're not mentioned. But they seem to be an integral part of "ARRGS."

My big question is: what's a reaction, and why should I put my D&D 3.5 book down for it?

Well thankyou for taking the time to read it. Please forgive my lack of clarity but my skill with the written word is not great.

So the Action - Reaction system is my way of explaining what is a d20 roll and what is a straight 10 value. Both get modifiers added as normal for everything in a d20 system.

Now in 3.5 or pathfinder the only d20 rolls are attacks, skill checks, and saving throws. I came up with the Action-Reaction system as a way of justifying that anything can be a d20 or a 10 value depending upon the situation.

So the person whose go it is performs an action, be that attacking with a sword, a spell, making a skill check, escaping from a grapple, etc.

The person or thing on the receiving end has a reaction and that is determined by the action being performed. So a spell attack is a 1d20 spell attack roll (Action) against the opponent's AC, Reflex, Willpower, Fortitude etc (Reaction). The Action is a 1d20 roll plus the characters modifiers, the reaction is 10 plus the opponent's modifiers.

The whole system makes everything operate on the same level, so when you escape from a grapple you are using your CMD score for the Action (1d20) against the opponent's CMB score (10). When you attempt to dispel a spell or counter a spell its your Spell Attack score as an Action (1d20) against the opponent's Spell Attack score as a reaction (10).

So that way i or any DM can, in ad hoc situations where a player wants to do a skill check that isn't covered in the rules, the DM could assign the reaction to another skill, another saving throw, even the opponent's Attack score (as i did for Acrobatics and Tumbling).

If you can point me in the direction of where i got it the wrong way round then i will go and change it, and if you have any suggestions on how to word it better then that would be much appreciated.


As for why should you put down your 3.5 book. I suppose it depends upon what role you take up in a typical DnD game (although form your name im guessing the DM) and whether you like the annoying problems inherent in 3.5 or pathfinder.

From a players point of view it has all the complexity of 3.5 (and more) and yet is a lot simpler on the maths. Bonuses of different types never stack, and i have deliberately made the bonuses more permanent so you can just update your character sheet with what your statistics are, rather than having to remember what your AC is when you are Opportunity Attacked and when you are charged, and when you are standing to the left of an enemy and wielding a polearm (extreme example but a lot of the later stuff in 3.5 was like that in my experience). Also there is now little or no need to multiclass as the classes are very free form, you should be able to find everything you want for your character concept in a single class. And just in case you do feel the need to multiclass there is no headache from having 3 lots class spell slots per day, nor is there a problem in calculating how many attacks you can make in a full round (the answer is as many as you want).


From a DM's point of view, as i stated above the maths is simpler (although not so simple as 5e which some people regard as too simple). You never have to worry about if bonuses stack because they never do. A wizard cannot dominate the game by casting 10 buffs on each player or 10 curses on each enemy and having just as many damaging effects going on. From a scenario creation point of view I'm aiming for it to be as simple as the DM wants. Each monster comes in 4 versions - Minion, Regular, Elite, and Boss. The Minion versions of monsters are much weaker than normal, the Regular monsters are as written in the Monsters section. Only the Elite and Boss versions are allowed any Race options.

So if you wanted the players to explore a dungeon you do not have to spend ages preparing a set of monsters and figuring out what feats they have and what each one does. Just chuck in a bunch of regular monsters and away you go. For the final or important encounters then you can use Elite or Boss monsters with a few Minions thrown in to soak up the damage. These Elite and Boss monsters have Race Options which make them just as customisable as a character class but within the flavour of the monster. You don't need to add a template or a class to a creature just to keep it competitive.

Finally and most importantly i have removed all the level based progression for saves and attacks, and trimmed down hit points. So that orc is still going to be able to hit the level 10 fighter (but with less frequency) and with enough orcs they could potentially kill the fighter if he is reckless or stupid and charges in alone. That means no more adding in magic items or templates and classes to boost weaker monsters, nor do you have to throw monsters of the same CR at the group just to challenge them. You can mix low level encounters with mid level, and high level, even throw in a boss on its own and it should still work.

I pretty much overhauled all the individual modules of d20 and made sure they all work together coherently, you don't have to look up the rules in detail for grapple, its pretty much the same as an attack, you don't have to look up the rules in detail for counterspell or dispel magic its pretty much the same as an attack.

There's loads more in it as well, the changes to magic and spells (any spell prepared in any slot at any level is pretty big i think), the changes to magic items, the changes to skills.


Of course the system may not be for you, depends upon your tastes. I loved 3.5 and pathfinder but was annoyed that beyond level 8 i had to chuck fiendish minotaurs in plate mail at every encounter just to challenge them, or had to use clever terrain or spellcasting set ups to neutralise certain characters (which was no fun for the characters), the balancing of the system became such a problem that several characters had to be scrapped because they didn't make the right choices (a situation that should never occur). I like things simple but with the option of being as complex as i want. So hopefully that's what i did.

If anyone has time i would appreciate if people would have a go at running something (even a single encounter) and let me know how it worked out, where the rules fall down or aren't clear, etc. Also any ideas on Class Options, Race Options, and Magic Items would be great.