A discussion of metagame concepts in game design

[Lanefan]

I agree it doesn't solve your problem, but to me having one caster option as limited spells known but choose on the fly and another with lots spells known but have to prepare/plan/guess ahead is a valuable differentiation, not a problem.

To me the problem is more that if everybody has choose on demand casting and spell variety maintains such a large role, it's hard to create comparable classes with a significant difference in spells known. I feel the current offset between say sorc and wiz 5e phb is not that good at least at tiers 1-2. Can see arguments it gets better at 3-4 *if* campaign is stingy with scrolls and extra spells.

Well, yeah, were I to do this in 5e I'd fold the Wizard and Sorcerer classes into one, treating the whole bloodline thing as just another background option. The one I'd redesign completely in order to make it different is Bard - ability-based rather than spell-based, sonic effects rather than arcane/divine, etc....either that, or just drop the class as redundant.

 

[Lanefan]

1e multi classing is way to metagamy for me and I love the meta game. If you play a Fighter who because of game reasons wants to become a Cleric then you are stuff out of luck if your stats are not exceptional and if you are not human. 3e fixed that problem.

It's fairly easily fixable in 1e as well.

And 3e's 'fix' is still very meta - you go a whole level in one class, then a whole level in another while stopping advancement in the first one. It's a flaw with the additive level design in 3e that calls a Ranger-8/Cleric-2 a 10th level character.

Far more fluid and somewhat less meta (in that it better reflects what's happening with the character) is tracking each class separately and then dividing xp earned into those classes in proportion to how they were earned. Here, a Ranger-8/Cleric-2 would be pretty much a Ranger-8 with a few extra divine spells; and any 4th-4th character would be about equivalent to a 5th rather than an 8th-level.

I would say that the reality of the D&D world is that people suffer light, serious and critical wounds, suffer maiming (which requires Regeneration to heal), and have mystical "life essence" which some undead can drain and which requires Restoration to restore.

Nothing in an D&D rulebook or setting has ever made me think that hit points are the reality of wellbeing and injury in the gameworld.

Perhaps, but most of the time they're the closest reflection of such we have to work with.

The way I see it, if my 65-h.p. character takes a 15 h.p. hit from something the DM tells me-the-player it hits for 15 and I-in-character wince and make it clear I felt that. When I'm down to 25 I can say in character I'm starting to fade a bit; my character obviously doesn't know the numbers but does know she's taking a pounding. After a combat when I'm at 45 out of 65 (in a system with slow natural healing!) and a healer asks me how I'm doing, in character I can say "There's others worse off, I'll be fine; but I did take a hit or two."

As the numbers are no more than a reflection of the character's reality it's just a matter of translating the numbers on the page into words spoken by the character that don't reference said numbers.

Lanefan

 

[5ekyu]

Well, yeah, were I to do this in 5e I'd fold the Wizard and Sorcerer classes into one, treating the whole bloodline thing as just another background option. The one I'd redesign completely in order to make it different is Bard - ability-based rather than spell-based, sonic effects rather than arcane/divine, etc....either that, or just drop the class as redundant.

Yup different flavors for different tastes.

I really like divisions having major differences betwern spell-craftsmen/trappers (wizards). Spell-callers (divines and warlocks) and spell-born (sorcerer).

Agree that bard is odd man out but my intent for them would be to define their source better and likely roll them into spell callers or spell born based on what road that definition took.

 

[Maxperson]

Falling damage has never worked right. Probably never will, for all that.

I've been toying with the idea of making it a percentage of your max hit points. Something like 20-100%(d6+d4x10%) of hit your points as a base, then adding 20% for every 10 feet beyond the first 10. A fall of 30 feet will give you 50-160% of your max hit points, with an average of 100%, making it likely that you will fall unconscious or die at that distance, unless you are playing 5e. It takes 50 feet before it's possible to die outright in 5e, but shorter distances would start death saves. It makes falls dangerous or deadly at all levels, as they should be. No more 20th level characters jumping off of 300 foot cliffs and brushing themselves off after they land.

 

[Shasarak]

It's fairly easily fixable in 1e as well.

And 3e's 'fix' is still very meta - you go a whole level in one class, then a whole level in another while stopping advancement in the first one.

That is indeed the problem of using a level system but it is much the same in 1e you go up one whole level in one class at a time.

It was definitely a big improvement over the dual class rules for humans though where you stopped being a Fighter until your other class was high enough.

It's a flaw with the additive level design in 3e that calls a Ranger-8/Cleric-2 a 10th level character.

That is true. Most martial classes did add together so a Fighter 8/Rogue 2 would be much the same as a Fighter 10 and on the other hand spell casting classes really can get boned, a Wizard 5/Cleric 5 is not the same as a Wizard 10. Which is what the prestige class system tried to patch in many ways.

 

[Shasarak]

As the numbers are no more than a reflection of the character's reality it's just a matter of translating the numbers on the page into words spoken by the character that don't reference said numbers.

Lanefan

You would imagine that would be the case wouldnt you but nope.

 

[Lanefan]

I've been toying with the idea of making it a percentage of your max hit points. Something like 20-100%(d6+d4x10%) of hit your points as a base, then adding 20% for every 10 feet beyond the first 10. A fall of 30 feet will give you 50-160% of your max hit points, with an average of 100%, making it likely that you will fall unconscious or die at that distance, unless you are playing 5e. It takes 50 feet before it's possible to die outright in 5e, but shorter distances would start death saves. It makes falls dangerous or deadly at all levels, as they should be. No more 20th level characters jumping off of 300 foot cliffs and brushing themselves off after they land.

That might be a bit more harsh than I'd be looking for, at first glance - I don't mind falls of up to 30 or 40' being survivable most of the time, if painful. But anything more than 50' or so should carry a risk of death or long-term injury, with the death risk sharply increasing as the distance fallen increases.

Tons of mitigating factors to consider, though, which is why blanket rules are hard to work with:
- armour worn (can very heavy armour absorb some of the impact?)
- magic armour
- surface landed on (spikes, jagged rock, flat stone, dirt, snow, water...)
- character abilities (for example some Hollywood stunties frequently do the sort of falls that would probably kill either of us, as they know how to roll etc. when they land)

It's not the 20th-level PC jumping off a 300' cliff that concerns me, if only because by 20th level if you don't have a flight or levitation or feather-fall device you're probably doing it wrong. It's the 8th-level PC with 70 h.p. being able to survive a 20d6 fall half the time that concerns me.

 

[Lanefan]

That is indeed the problem of using a level system but it is much the same in 1e you go up one whole level in one class at a time.

Maybe it's 2e that made this official, or maybe it never was, but we've house-ruled it this way since forever in 1e: your classes advance independent of each other. You determine the ratio of xp you're going to dump into each class - say, a F-MU that's 75% Fighter, 25% MU - and each class just bumps when it bumps.

So you start as a 1-1 with 0 xp on each side. During your first few adventures you earn 4000 xp, which puts 3000 on your F side and 1000 on your MU side - you're now F-2/MU-1. Get another 4000 and you'll have 6000 on your F side (so now 3rd level) and 2000 on your MU side (still 1st level but 2nd is getting close). Do this again, so now you've got 9000 on your F side and 3000 on your MU side, and you're a F-4/MU-2....and so it goes.

See how this works?

There's nuances - we allow the ratio to be changed between adventures, for example, to reflect character development. In the above example, the player-as-PC might now decide to focus more on magic use, and flip the xp ratio for the next adventure to 75% MU/25% F. You always have to put at least 10% into a class, thus 90-10 is the most extreme ratio we allow.

It certainly requires a little more arithmetic on the player side, but I see this as their problem not mine.

It was definitely a big improvement over the dual class rules for humans though where you stopped being a Fighter until your other class was high enough.

Yeah, that one was kinda dumb.

That is true. Most martial classes did add together so a Fighter 8/Rogue 2 would be much the same as a Fighter 10 and on the other hand spell casting classes really can get boned, a Wizard 5/Cleric 5 is not the same as a Wizard 10. Which is what the prestige class system tried to patch in many ways.

With my very first 3e character I tried to do the equivalent of a 90% Fighter/10% Wizard. Big-time fail, mechanically.

Lanefan

 

[Shasarak]

Maybe it's 2e that made this official, or maybe it never was, but we've house-ruled it this way since forever in 1e: your classes advance independent of each other. You determine the ratio of xp you're going to dump into each class - say, a F-MU that's 75% Fighter, 25% MU - and each class just bumps when it bumps.

So you start as a 1-1 with 0 xp on each side. During your first few adventures you earn 4000 xp, which puts 3000 on your F side and 1000 on your MU side - you're now F-2/MU-1. Get another 4000 and you'll have 6000 on your F side (so now 3rd level) and 2000 on your MU side (still 1st level but 2nd is getting close). Do this again, so now you've got 9000 on your F side and 3000 on your MU side, and you're a F-4/MU-2....and so it goes.

See how this works?

There's nuances - we allow the ratio to be changed between adventures, for example, to reflect character development. In the above example, the player-as-PC might now decide to focus more on magic use, and flip the xp ratio for the next adventure to 75% MU/25% F. You always have to put at least 10% into a class, thus 90-10 is the most extreme ratio we allow.

It certainly requires a little more arithmetic on the player side, but I see this as their problem not mine.

I had not heard of having an uneven split with XP. But you see that you go up one level of Fighter and then another level of Fighter and then finally one level of Wizard which is effectively the same as leveling up one level of Fighter, one level of Fighter, one level of Wizard (except not being able to start as a Fighter/Wizard at level 1 of course.)

Yeah, that one was kinda dumb.

With my very first 3e character I tried to do the equivalent of a 90% Fighter/10% Wizard. Big-time fail, mechanically.

Lanefan

I dont know maybe there is an exploit using True Strike that could combo with Fighter. Or maybe the Arcane Archer prestige class. :shrug:

 

[Lanefan]

I had not heard of having an uneven split with XP. But you see that you go up one level of Fighter and then another level of Fighter and then finally one level of Wizard which is effectively the same as leveling up one level of Fighter, one level of Fighter, one level of Wizard (except not being able to start as a Fighter/Wizard at level 1 of course.)

Mechanicall, yes; the bumps end up going like that. But the process feels more organic, if that makes any sense.

I dont know maybe there is an exploit using True Strike that could combo with Fighter. Or maybe the Arcane Archer prestige class. :shrug:

Don't think Arcane Archer would have worked - dexterity wasn't exactly his strong suit.

My idea was to make him a tank most of the time, using spells only for out-of-combat stuff like camp defense, detecting and identifying magic items, and so on. All I really ended up doing was gimping his fighter side.