[True20] Is it for me?

[jdrakeh]

True, but I find having the PC's figure out some signature effects moves this along pretty quickly.

That didn't work for us. One of the PCs was an adept fashioned after a rather infamous mage named Tim (yes, that Tim) who specialized in fireballs, for example. What is resolved via a simple statement of action in many systems (including systems with pre-calculated effects such as HERO), requires multiple calculations and at least one die roll (often more) during actual play under the True20 rules.

For me and my players at the time, this was a a giant move away from the kind of simplified game play that serves as True20's biggest selling point. In fact, it called my attention to the fact that True20 isn't really any less complicated than D&D 3.5, it's just complicated in a different way -- much of D&D's complexity is front-loaded (i.e., it shows up in character creation) while most of True20's complexity is on the back-end (i.e., it only shows up during actual game play).

Although I'm not a huge fan of complexity in either area, I'll take front-loaded complexity any day. My combats is D&D may be protracted compared to those in something like C&C, though they still run quite a bit faster than any combat that I've run in True20 (or, more correctly, any combat that involved the use of offensive powers in True20).

They also take ownership of their powers, rather tan choosing from a list.

This is true, though I think that there are more intuitive ways to achieve this same level of custom-tailored spell without mucking up the pace of actual play (in fact, I know that there are).

 

[JBowtie]

That didn't work for us. One of the PCs was an adept fashioned after a rather infamous mage named Tim (yes, that Tim) who specialized in fireballs, for example. What is resolved via a simple statement of action in many systems (including systems with pre-calculated effects such as HERO), requires multiple calculations and at least one die roll (often more) during actual play under the True20 rules.

I had exactly the opposite experience. In our group, we simply treat the spells the way we treat skills. The player describes the result they want, I assign a Difficulty, and they roll. Just as with skills, I can either make up charts for specific effects, or I can pick a number that seems right.

And it's not as though D&D spells don't involve calculations, lots of them have little formulas involving caster level, hit dice of the target, and so forth that need to be checked during casting - god help you if you can choose from the entire list every day.

All that said, the magic system is very loosely coupled to the True20 framework. There's only one spell-casting class and all the magic feats are grouped together under adept. Very easy to replace without any fiddling.

 

[jdrakeh]

I had exactly the opposite experience. In our group, we simply treat the spells the way we treat skills. The player describes the result they want, I assign a Difficulty, and they roll.

Note that this is a house rule, so it isn't really germain to the conversation. I was talking about using the True20 powers rules as written and, as written, they require a great deal of effect-specific calculation during actual play based on many different variables (especially true of damage-dealing spells).

Sure, I could just handwave all of that, though ignoring the written rules doesn't actually fix the issues that I have with them. More importantly, though, if the best solution to a given rules issue is to ignore the the rules as written, I'm not certain why one would pay for said rules in the first place. That simply isn't very practical.

And it's not as though D&D spells don't involve calculations, lots of them have little formulas involving caster level, hit dice of the target, and so forth that need to be checked during casting - god help you if you can choose from the entire list every day.

That's true, though most of these things aren't subject to change from one casting of a given spell to the next, IME. In True20 most spell effects are entirely variable which, as I said, gives you a lot of flexibility -- I (and my players) felt, however, that said flexibility came at the price of gross complexity. YMMV, of course.

[Edit: You will, if you reread my post, also note that I freely admit D&D is complex -- I feel, however, that it is a different kind of complex for the most part. ]

Very easy to replace without any fiddling.

IME adding entirely new mechanics to a game always requires fiddling (usually a lot of it). I can't see where adding a standard D&D class or D&D magic to True20 wouldn't require quite a bit of fiddling to balance according to that system's rules

 

[Aus_Snow]

On reflection, I think I'd approach this from the angle of: "What do I like about True20?" If there's enough by way of an answer, then go for it.

Because yeah, it seems you want to replace many parts of it with many other things. Cool. But if there isn't enough left of the system itself at the end of that process, then. . . why bother?

 

[Father of Dragons]

That didn't work for us. One of the PCs was an adept fashioned after a rather infamous mage named Tim (yes, that Tim) who specialized in fireballs, for example. What is resolved via a simple statement of action in many systems (including systems with pre-calculated effects such as HERO), requires multiple calculations and at least one die roll (often more) during actual play under the True20 rules.

Let's see, Fireball just translates to a Widened Elemental Blast (Fire). You use the power, the targets make a Reflex save for 1/2, then a damage save. Finally the Adept makes a fatigue save and records a -1 to fatigue saves for the next hour. This is opposed to D&D where you roll the damage, the targets make a Reflex save for 1/2, and then the caster records that they used a spell of that level (Sorcerer) or used that particular spell (Wizard). Saving throw Difficulties are fixed in both cases. I don't think I understand the difference you're talking about here.

As for the OP, well, personally, if I'm going to play D&D, I use D&D. I use True20 for my custom settings. Other people do feel differently though, and convert D&D settings to True20. Tastes vary.

 

[jdrakeh]

Let's see, Fireball just translates to a Widened Elemental Blast (Fire). You use the power, the targets make a Reflex save for 1/2, then a damage save. Finally the Adept makes a fatigue save and records a -1 to fatigue saves for the next hour. This is opposed to D&D where you roll the damage, the targets make a Reflex save for 1/2, and then the caster records that they used a spell of that level (Sorcerer) or used that particular spell (Wizard). Saving throw Difficulties are fixed in both cases. I don't think I understand the difference you're talking about here.

Well, for starters, you make two more dice rolls to resolve the effect of a fireball in True20, which seems a bit counterintuitive for something billed as less complex than standard D&D More importantly, however, the manner in which you illustrate a fireball is not, by a long shot, the only way to model such a spell in True20 (which might be part of the problem). Let's look at the Quickstart rules, ostensibly created to show off the system's versatility and ease:

First, to actually ignite or create a fireball, the an Adept needs to make a successful Fire Shaping check (Difficulty 15).

That's one roll for the caster, pretty simple.

The mage can increase the size and intensity of the fire (or fireball) by making another Fire Shaping check at a difficulty of 10 + 1 per square foot of increase. Every two square feet increases the fire’s damage potential by +1.

This makes a total of two rolls for the caster, should they choose to cast a more deadly fireball (and I'm not sure why they wouldn't), plus a 100% variable potential modifer to both the roll in question and the forthcoming Toughness saving throw.

The mage can move objects with the power of his thoughts. The Difficulty
of the Move Object check is based on the mass of the object (I suspect that a ball of fire weighs less than two pounds, so a base Difficulty of 10) and whether or not you choose to risk fatigue. A fatiguing use of Move Object can move ten times the mass listed on the table (so 20 pounds at Difficulty 10, up to 2,000 pounds at Difficulty 40) and doubles the listed damage.

Regardless of whether fatigue will be risked in order to double the listed damage from impact (+1), we have another roll for the caster to project that ball of fire and a +1 adjustment to the forthcoming Toughness saving throw. We also have a further potential adjusment of +1 to the Toughness savig throw if, in fact, fatigue is risked. Now, that only allows the mage to attempt throwing the fireball. Whether or not it actually hits. . .

To hit an opponent with the fireball, a ranged attack roll is required. If successful, the fireball deals impact damage based on the Move Object skill check (see above) and the intensity of the fireball as previously determined. Since using Move Object is a move action, you can move an object and strike with it (as a standard action) in the same round.

So. . . another die roll for the Adept. The good news is that the mage's player is, for the most part, done rolling dice at the moment.

Anyone hit with a damaging attack makes a Toughness saving throw. This
is a roll of 1d20 plus Toughness (which measures the ability to avoid or
shrug off damage) plus any modifiers from armor.

Now the target of the spell gets to make a Toughness saving throw modified by at least two variables, and up to four variables based on choices made.

The use of some powers puts a strain on the adept’s mind and body. When an adept uses a fatiguing power, the player must make a fatigue save; this is a Will saving throw against a Difficulty of 11 (for the powers of a 1st-level adept).

So. . . at least one, possibly as many as three Will saving throws for the mage in question. So. . . for a 1st Level adept to cast a fireball using the default True20 Quickstart rules, takes. . .

• At least four rolls for the caster, possibly as many as seven.
• One possible roll for the target, with at least two alterations and possibly four.

Now, as one of my players mentioned, this makes for very flexible magic (the player has control over nearly every individual aspect of the spell) with added efficiency costing tangible player resources (fatigue) and a real possibility of spell failure occurring (due to the multi-step casting process). This is all good and all part of why we looked at True20 in the first place (i.e., all of these features were part of the advertising buzz).

What is not good (or at least what wasn't good for us) is the vastly increased complexity that comes with implementing such freeform casting during actual play. Something billed as being 'simple' and 'fluid' ended up being a monumental chore for us due to the multiple dice rolls and variable bookkeeping. We had the flexiblity to create pretty much any kind of spell effect we wanted, though the cost for customization was complexity that dwarfed that of D&D. Which is not what we wanted.

Our hope had been that some of this would diminish once we started using the full rule-set (which some of it did, as per your own example), though plenty of fiddly emulation issues continued to crop up when attempting to duplicate other aspects of D&D where powers were concerned. In the end, the versatility of True20 was great, though it came at too high a cost in complexity for my players and I.

Ultimately, for us, D&D emulated D&D better than True20 did.

[Edit: I guess the real issue was that the more we tested True20's boundaries, the more unamanageable it became. Our group would have been fabulous stress testers for GR. We found that if we stuck to stuff as written, it's fairly manageable. When we started using it to emulate other things (which is what is was ostensibly designed for), it burst at the seams under the weight of actual play complications where powers were concerned.]

 

[DnDChick]

That's now how you do a "fireball" in True20, though.

You need Fire Shaping and Elemental Blast. That's it. Move Object never enters into it.

You don't have to make a Fire Shaping check to get a fireball, or increase the size of it. Increasing the size of the fireball is for manipulating already-burning fires. For example, you can toss a torch into the corner of a house and turn it into a conflagration by using Fire Shaping.

Elemental Blast is what allows the adept to make a ranged attack.

The Widen feat makes it into an area attack, where the target avoids it with a Reflex save instead of a ranged attack.

You're making it much more complicated than it needs to be.

The process is:

Single target
1. You need Fire Shaping and Elemental Blast.
2. Adept picks a target and makes a ranged attack roll.
3. If he hits the target, the target makes a Toughness save. The damage bonus is equal to the adept's levels in the adept role.
4. Adept makes a fatigue save.
5. Done. Two rolls for the adept (attack roll, fatigue save) and one for the target, if hit (Toughness save).

Multiple targets
1. You need Fire Shaping, Elemental Blast, and Widen power.
2. Adept picks a driection to aim the blast.
3. Targets in the area of effect (a radius 2x the adept's levels in the adept role, as stated by the Widen Power feat) make a Reflex save (10 + 1/2adept levels + adept key ability) to avoid it.
3a. Those that fail take full damage; those that succeed take 1/2 damage.
3b. The damage bonus is equal to 1/2 the adept's levels in the adept role.
4. Adept makes a fatigue save.
5. Done. One roll for the adept (fatigue save) and two for the targets (Reflex save, Toughness save).

 

[jdrakeh]

That's now how you do a "fireball" in True20, though.

You can do a fireball that way in True20, which was the point. I acknowledge in my last past that it's not the only way (or most efficient) way to do it and that the build you're criticizing was done up using only the Quickstart rules (and, yes, that is the only way to do it with those rules). I'm afraid that your post above doesn't elucidate anything that I (or others) haven't already clearly stated.

Also, read the closing paragraphs of my last post, including the bracketed edit. . .

The example was meant to illustrate that while the system is supposedly built to allow for the level of customization that my player's approach to a fireball spell provided and also remain simple, it fails to deliver on the latter. It, IME, delivers on the promise of customization, though at the expense of 'simple' (i.e., the more that one mixes and matches effects to create different types of spells or allow for greater degrees of control, the more cumbersome the actual play gets).

If a player wants a high level of control over spells or powers, the GM needs to be prepared for the not insignificant amount of work that will entail, as well as the accompanying hurdles that such degree of control poses to the flow of actual play. The more mechanical control that a player wants over spell variables, the more powers must be incorporated to facilitate it and, ultimately, the more cumbersome such spells become.

The individual powers in the book work fairly well. It's when you start combining effects that the system falls apart, specifically when you start combining effects toward the end of player control. It's isn't a matter of not doing spells well out of the book, so much as it is a matter being a crappy tool for building spells of your own. Which is problem (at least for me and my players), as the game is marketed as a tool-kit system.

 

[Hjorimir]

You can do a fireball that way in True20, which was the point. I acknowledge in my last past that it's not the only way (or most efficient) way to do it and that the build you're criticizing was done up using only the Quickstart rules (and, yes, that is the only way to do it with those rules). I'm afraid that your post above doesn't elucidate anything that I (or others) haven't already clearly stated.

No, what you did was spend three rounds creating some kind of giant flaming sphere. The Quickstart rules are just a peek of the True20 system and offer a brief introduction to the system. To base True20 on only the Quickstart rules is tantamount to judging a book by its cover.

Also, read the closing paragraphs of my last post, including the bracketed edit. . .

My group has found it far more simplistic to navigate uncharted territory with True20 than D&D.

The example was meant to illustrate that while the system is supposedly built to allow for the level of customization that my player's approach to a fireball spell provided and also remain simple, it fails to deliver on the latter. It, IME, delivers on the promise of customization, though at the expense of 'simple' (i.e., the more that one mixes and matches effects to create different types of spells or allow for greater degrees of control, the more cumbersome the actual play gets).

Well, I can't argue your experience, but the game is highly flexible and, IME, incredibly more simple and streamlined than what D&D offers. I guess experiences vary.

If a player wants a high level of control over spells or powers, the GM needs to be prepared for the not insignificant amount of work that will entail, as well as the accompanying hurdles that such degree of control poses to the flow of actual play. The more mechanical control that a player wants over spell variables, the more powers must be incorporated to facilitate it and, ultimately, the more cumbersome such spells become.

First you're talking about players wanting control over their powers, which they already have plenty of in True20's RAW. There is no significant work required there. Then you start talking about incorporating more powers. Do you mean new, custom powers? Sure, creating a custom power take work; creating custom spells in D&D takes work too.

The individual powers in the book work fairly well. It's when you start combining effects that the system falls apart, specifically when you start combining effects toward the end of player control. It's isn't a matter of not doing spells well out of the book, so much as it is a matter being a crappy tool for building spells of your own. Which is problem (at least for me and my players), as the game is marketed as a tool-kit system.

I'd be interested to see the marketing material you're talking about. I see True20 as a great system for running different types of campaigns. I guess, you could call it a tool-kit system for that, but it isn't a tool-kit book like Unearthed Arcana is for D&D, which is litterally just a book of subsystems used to replace or augment other systems within D&D's RAW.

If you want to run D&D, run D&D. But, if you want to run a different kind of fantasy... or pulp or science fiction or modern horror or whatever you mind comes up with, I bet you can do it far easier with True20. It's a fantastic system and I highly recommend it to anybody looking for something different.

 

[jdrakeh]

No, what you did was spend three rounds creating some kind of giant flaming sphere.

Explain to me how a giant ball of flame that flies and inflicts fire damage isn't a fireball.

First you're talking about players wanting control over their powers, which they already have plenty of in True20's RAW.

I'm talking about control over certain variables that Power X won't grant on its own but that, when combined with Power Y, become available.

Then you start talking about incorporating more powers. Do you mean new, custom powers?

Nope. I mean incorporating other powers from the book (i.e., combining Power X and Power Y to get the benefits of both). This was a major part of the hype surrounding the game and a design goal of the system (i.e., the flexibility to combine power effects to mimic other source materials). Again, the flexibility I think it delivers on, though at the expense of simplicity and ease of use during actual play.