Dusk: The World of Carthasana

[Michael Morris]

Well, actually... the caster doesn't loose the spell, she can still prepare it on a higher slot (he can now even use metamagic feats on it)

The solution I'm considering is that spells themselves 'level up'. We see this already in chain spells in 3e, but this should be a little cleaner. Consider this draft of the iconic magic missile

Magic Missile
1st level Daily Shunran Evocation [Force]

This spell creates one bolt of force per level. Each bolt deals 1d4+1 damage.

3rd level: +Medium range
5th level: +Recoverable (spell is recovered with 5 minutes rest).
6th level: +Long range
7th level: +At will

The problem is that, it is not just that simple...

Socialism is not just about the group (Capitalism isn't just about the individual, either). There are socialist countries where people have extremely crappy lives and limited rights and capitalist countries where you don't actually have any individual power or freedom.

Socialism and capitalism are economic system models. In the real world no country has a pure example of either. Valra and Sodra don't map precisely to either one.

If you game with people who are somewhat like minded, this won't arise any issue. But if you share it with everyone, you will find out that many people think differently.

Except that this system has one extreme difference from the original - it is inclusive whereas the original system is exclusive.

An example to illustrate what I mean by this: If I'm playing a Chaotic Good character and I do something the DM considers neutral or evil he may want to change my alignment to Chaotic Neutral. The argument comes from what severity of action justifies the change in alignment and the argument is so fierce because not only are character abilities sometimes tied to alignment but because each alignment is exclusive of the others. You can't be Chaotic and Lawful at the same time. One might argue that's what neutral means, but it still involves a total shift from the previous alignment and all that entails.

This alignment system isn't exclusive - that is characters can have multiple alignments - even alignment combinations that have cognitive dissonance by their very natures (Valra / Sodra). Not only this but the game expects characters to have more than one alignment. Spells and items that care about an alignment only care if a character has an alignment or doesn't have it - it won't care about whatever other alignments the character has.

So if a character who is Valra aligned does something consistent with Sodra then they may pick up the Sodra alignment, but they don't lose their old alignment in any way. This alone I've found stops most of the arguments from gaining much traction. And the atonement spell removes the taint of an alignment the character might not want.

Another way to phrase it is this: The old alignment system labels you as X or Y or Z. This alignment system labels you as X and/or Y and/or Z.

 

[Ramaster]

This alignment system isn't exclusive - that is characters can have multiple alignments - even alignment combinations that have cognitive dissonance by their very natures (Valra / Sodra). Not only this but the game expects characters to have more than one alignment. Spells and items that care about an alignment only care if a character has an alignment or doesn't have it - it won't care about whatever other alignments the character has.

Mmmm, dind't thought of that, guess that kind of balances things out. I still think you are a little biased against yellow, but whatever.

In other news, man, just now I finished reading the classes and I loved what you did.

The "5 Magic, 5 Might" class array is pretty solid. The class left out is the Paladin, something that intrigues me (Paizo showed me that paladins can have their own shtick, but it is also true that is a serious overlap with LG clerics).

The only thing that is kind of awkward IMHO is the fact that rangers ended up "black" and green. I can see the justification being "Well, she is black because she is self reliant and green because she likes natural environments" but I am curious to see where you go with this, mechanically.

Is the rules backbone going to be 3.5/4e/Pathfinder or something else?
But seriously, I really dig this system. If you have some drafts of the general mechanics, please do share. I myself have a novel idea for handling weapons for d20 that you might find useful, so contact me if you want to spice things up in this regard.

One more thing. Why did you assign a specific "new" name to the colors? Wouldn’t it be simpler to just call them Yellow, Blue, Black, etc? Is your concern that WotC will make a fuzz about it and you are planning on publishing the system? If you are not, I suggest just leaving them like that.

 

[Michael Morris]

Mmmm, dind't thought of that, guess that kind of balances things out. I still think you are a little biased against yellow, but whatever.

In other news, man, just now I finished reading the classes and I loved what you did.

The "5 Magic, 5 Might" class array is pretty solid. The class left out is the Paladin, something that intrigues me (Paizo showed me that paladins can have their own shtick, but it is also true that is a serious overlap with LG clerics).

I like paladins too, but they may return as a prestige class or a kit of some sort. The archetype is solid, but narrow, which is why of 3e's 11 classes he's the one that got voted off the island.

The only thing that is kind of awkward IMHO is the fact that rangers ended up "black" and green. I can see the justification being "Well, she is black because she is self reliant and green because she likes natural environments" but I am curious to see where you go with this, mechanically.

Is the rules backbone going to be 3.5/4e/Pathfinder or something else?
But seriously, I really dig this system. If you have some drafts of the general mechanics, please do share. I myself have a novel idea for handling weapons for d20 that you might find useful, so contact me if you want to spice things up in this regard.

The backbone will start from d20 Pathfinder with influences from several areas. But the core will remain a recognizable d20 roll high engine.

One more thing. Why did you assign a specific "new" name to the colors? Wouldn’t it be simpler to just call them Yellow, Blue, Black, etc? Is your concern that WotC will make a fuzz about it and you are planning on publishing the system? If you are not, I suggest just leaving them like that.

Abora, Valra, Balcra, Sodra and Shunra are the five exarch deities of the setting. The outer planes they created are Aborea, Valrea, Balcrea, Sodrea, and Shunrea. Each magic type flows from the respective outer planes.

The reasoning is a bit nuanced. To me it feels funny to a student of magic to call a type of magic by a color name. "Shunran" magic is a bit more formal sounding than "Red" magic, which is more evocative. The colors remain insofar as those are the colors of spells under the examination of detect magic. Also, non-magic users and especially commoners will refer to magic by color names.

I want to keep the door to publishing the system somewhat open, though I severely doubt that will ever occur especially since I'll be discussing it here.


Magic Classes
Ok, direct response out of the way, I'm going to look a little closer at the magic classes. To review they are..

Violet & Red - Sorcerer
Green & Yellow - Druid
Violet & Yellow - Cleric
Green & Blue - Bard
Red & Blue - Wizard

Sorting by color gives us...

Yellow - Cleric, Druid
Blue - Wizard, Bard
Violet - Cleric, Sorcerer
Red - Sorcerer, Wizard
Green - Bard, Druid

Spells belong to these five orders, not to the classes. So any green spell a druid can cast a bard can also cast. The overlap also should clue into the natures of both class and order. In Dusk 3e the spell list is divided over the orders after their creation. Here we're creating new spells with an understanding of the type of effects each order is capable of.

If each class has 1 spell per order per spell level it has access to that's 90 spells. That doesn't give players any choice so a multiple is desirable. Since 3 is the most spells a character can have at a level there needs to be, at a minimum, 270 spells.

Luckily, there are more - far more spells in the setting. There are some 273 spells in Pathfinder Core, and the Dusk setting book adds another 300 or so. So it isn't so much a process of making spells as whittling down the list.

Also, spells will find themselves merged. Consider how the flight spells might be merged, or the merger of burning hands, flamesphere, and fireball.

More thoughts to come...

 

[Michael Morris]

Today I'm going to move off of class implementation and look at ability scores. The classic six: Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma. Here I'm considering strongly a change that violates the very foundation of what makes a d20 game a d20 game - removing an ability score.

Let me make the primary reason for this choice clear - numerology. If we remove an ability we have 5 abilities. 5 alignments. 5 types of magic - see a pattern?

But beyond the thematic tie in, it can solve a couple of problems. First, the fact that players would pick a stat to be a "dump" stat hints that there are too many ability scores to begin with. But also, the most frequent choice of dump stat - charisma, would imply that this stat gets shorted a bit.

Unless you are a spellcaster intelligence and wisdom also get low priority, but if most of the existing charisma skills are divided between these two their importance gets promoted.

Finally, it should be of note that I've been playing a lot of a game called Savage Worlds published by Pinnacle Games and it also has 5 stats and no charisma as a core ability. In that game especially high charisma can be chosen as an edge, and especially low charisma can be chosen as a hindrance, but on the whole the game gets along just fine without a charisma stat (there is a charisma "derived stat")

So perhaps that's an influence as well.

Next is the issue of which numbers. Green Ronin's Blue Rose game took off with the idea of dispensing with the ability scores and just using modifiers as scores. That's along the right track, but I still like the 3-18 spread and want to use it. In the Legends & Lore articles Mike Mearls (or was it Monte Cook?) discussed the idea of having ability scores be target numbers. It seems they've went with this idea, but to make it work they're locking ability score progressions down to a 1-25 range overall.

I dislike this idea immensely - I'm rather found of the open ended ability scores of 3e. But it does point out that if ability scores are to be the target number, the current ability modifier scheme is unworkable. To wit, the ability modifier of a giant with a 31 strength is +10, but d20+10 can never hit DC 31. And it gets worse past that point.

There is a solution which I personally disliked when I first realized it, but have warmed up to it since. When actively testing an ability, let the ability modifier to the roll be ability score - 10. This creates an open ended schema as two characters of any ability score will have equal odds against each other if they have the same ability score.

But it does involve math inflation. At 1st level a character with an 18 ability is rolling d20+8 for that ability.

The system also allows, if the DM wishes, to let the players make all the rolls. To dodge an attack by an orc with a 15 strength is a dexterity test. Some players and DMs might balk at this while others embrace it just as rabidly, but having the system at its heart not care either way is a great boon.

Oh, on the issue of alignment and ability scores... Each alignment favors one ability score as follows: Valra - Wisdom, Balcra - Intelligence, Sodra - Dexterity, Shunra - Strength, Abora - Constitution. Returning to the previous post on classes this creates the following relations:

Barbarian - STR, CON
Bard - INT, CON
Cleric - DEX, WIS
Druid - CON, WIS
Fighter - STR, WIS
Monk - INT, WIS
Ranger - CON, DEX
Rogue - INT, DEX
Sorcerer - STR, DEX
Wizard - STR, INT

Most of these pairings aren't surprising, and all the classes have at least one of their classic prime requisites associated with their color. The Barbarian, Druid, Ranger, and Rogue are especially well matched. Wizards paired with strength is the biggest stand out, though it makes sense with the thought that their magic is physically the strongest of the five types, even if the wizard himself isn't strong.

These aren't absolute of course and still in progress. If anyone can come up with a better arrangement I'm all ears.

 

[Michael Morris]

A persistent problem of the d20 game is balancing martial against magic classes. 4e's solution was to make all characters spellcasters. You can use all the wordplay you want, but when a fighter has a technique he can only use once a day - he's become a spellcaster. And that isn't acceptable to me.

I think that the five martial classes - barbarians, fighters, monks, rangers and rogues need a core mechanic that is fight oriented and flexible enough to allow all five of them to implement it in a manner that is flavored to them.

My idea is combat meter. Any time a fighting class lands a hit the meter rises by one. The universal effect of the meter is that it drops the critical range of attacks. So a fighter using a longsword (19-20) who has landed three normal hits will have a crit range of 15-20 on the fourth attack, if that doesn't crit the next will have a range of 14-20. Once a crit lands the meter resets.

Combat meter can also be spent to perform maneuvers. Each character will have a number of these flavored for alignment and class, and therein will be overlap - barbarians and fighters will share shunran maneuvers, while fighters share valran maneuvers with monks. Characters pick up or improve (by lowering its cost) a maneuver each level. These will be separate from feats.

One last thing - if a character actually rolls natural 20 and crits while they have combat meter they deal 1d6 damage per point of meter in addition to the normal damage of the attack, then the meter is cleared. (returning to the previous example, if the fighter rolls a 20 to hit with 3 points on the meter, he'll deal +3d6 damage). This damage rule also provides a rule of thumb as to how powerful the abilities should be at each cost.

Thoughts?

 

[SLOTHmaster]

It seems like you could do a lot with that mechanic. Perhaps you might want to lower the effects of a generic critical hit or how easy they are to get to encourage the use of the points for maneuvers rather than leaving martial classes essentially the same with a higher crit chance.

 

[Celebrim]

I like your ideas on yellow and black, but your situation seems a bit biased.

Socialism (white) is interested in maintaining the status quo while capitalism (violet) is interested in progress? Really?

That's weird to me, being a socialist, since I consider that it is just the other way around!

Without addressing what the right answer is, I'd just like to point out that regardless of what the right answer is, you are expected to say that. You are always going to see the color you are aligned with as being fundamentally promotive of health, and the color you are not as fundamentally not.

If you are curious, try figuring out what the word 'progress' means to you and what you'd consider worthy of sacrificing to achieve it. A surprising number of arguments have thier roots in imprecisely defined words. How would you know if something is progress?

It's worth noting that real world capitalists consider socialism to be regressive to the point of being reactionary (see for example the writings of Hayek), and conversely its worth thinking about what progress means to a capitalist and what they think are worth sacrificing to achieve it.

The thing here is that, in my opinion, it would be IMPOSIBLE for any given human to make a truly neutral and unbiased system where both left-wing thinking and right-wing thinking are presented as equal options.

And again, it is expected that you will think that. As the OP pointed out, "For each color sees its enemies as evil (or at least questionable) and itself as good, with a neutral outlook on its "allies". Or, in moral terms: Morals are the values of the color. Immoral is the label the color applies to it's enemies. Amoral is the attitude of the color to it's allies values." In the standard D&D alignment system, adherents of neutral evil think that it is obvious that their beliefs represent the superior and correct moral choice and that no rational and truly unbiased being would choose anything else. They think anyone who doesn't believe as they do is obviously either a hypocrite, a coward, or a fool. It is inconcievable to them that a rational being would see the alternatives to evil as equal options.

 

[Michael Morris]

On alignment - I think I should clarify that while socialism and capitalism are sympathetic to Valra and Sodra respectively, they are each too narrow to be applied to these alignments. Instead, let's look the #1 priority of each ethos:

Valra - My Community
Abora - My World
Shunra - My Family
Sodra - Myself
Balcra - My Knowledge

Note also that each ethos has a pair of enemies - and it is what those two have in common that is most antithetical to the ethos. Again

Valra - Values Law - Sodra & Shunra share Chaos. This is the only D&D axis present in this system.

Abora - Values Nature - Sodra & Balcra share Artifice.
Shunra - Values Freedom - Balcra & Valra share Rigid Order.
Sodra - Values independence - Abora & Valra share Interdependence.
Balcra - Values Knowledge - Shunra & Abora share Instinct.

Interesting point the above should bring up - can you be lawful chaotic? Well, yeah. There's a certain cognitive dissonance to it, but a character can certainly be this way. Any vigilante fits this pattern by working outside the law (a chaotic act) to uphold the law (a lawful goal). And cults throughout fantasy literature can be very ordered even while they seek to overthrow the established order.

The largest change of this system is, again, it's capacity to be inclusive. If your character needs three ethos labels to describe him, so be it. Purity is just a spell away. The system "remembers" what you have done and - atonement aside - doesn't forget.

And what you do marks you more strongly that before. If you are a fighter you are a very disciplined warrior, but are capable of the fierce individual maneuvers that make others on the field fear you - hence Shunra/Valra.


Magic Classes
So let's look at the martial classes shall we? To review they are..

Gold & Red - Fighter
Gold & Blue - Monk
Blue & Violet - Rogue
Violet & Green - Ranger
Green & Red - Barbarian

And again, sorting by color...

Gold - Fighter, Monk
Blue - Monk, Rogue
Violet - Rogue, Ranger
Red - Fighter, Barbarian
Green - Barbarian, Ranger

While the magic class pairings are strong, these are even stronger - even classic, down to why the classes overlap. Monks and Rogues overlap in blue - they share in common being the two skill monkey classes, as well as speed based. Fighters & Monks share their intense, almost ascetically approach to combat which fits with their overlap. Rogue / Ranger - self sufficiency and stealth. Ranger / Barbarian - nature. Barbarian and Fighter hit the hardest and represent red.

While magical classes pull from a common pool of spells which is segregated over the five alignments, martial classes will pull from a common pool of techniques. I mentioned one way above how these techniques might work. Each time a character hits the foe they score a point. Those points are cashed back in to perform spectacular maneuvers.

Magical classes are therefore a little front loaded - their spells can be used at any time, while martial classes take a bit to come on line but when they do they can end the combat quickly. The systems need to be comparable.

Another idea is to give each class a strike mechanic.

Rogue - extra damage if foe is caught unaware
Monk - extra damage on counterattacks against opponent's misses
Fighter - extra damage on flanking
Ranger - extra damage at range on foes who haven't moved (sniping)
Barbarian - extra damage on foes which have damaged the barbarian (rage)

Part of this is through dividing sneak attack in half between the rogue and the fighter. Then again, perhaps sneak attack is left alone and fighters pick up the inexorable crit mechanic outlined above.

As I mentioned earlier, magic users will be nerfed by not getting both the class and the spell level added to their spells. This is major and puts the bar where martial classes can be buffed to reach. Ideally 2000 mooks vs. a 20th level fighter have no more chance than they have against a wizard who is prepared for them. Think is, they could catch the fighter off guard and still get their butt handed to them on a plate.

 

[Michael Morris]

Initiative and Speed...

One of the more evil things 3e did to the balance of power between martial and magical classes was the removal of casting times. Prior to 3e initiative was more complicated - it changed from round to round and spells had a delay from when they started to when they completed which could be interrupted. This created a risk / reward situation for spell casters and prevented them from being able to use spells in combat.

Then there's the evolving complexity of actions. Full-round actions, Standard Actions, Move-Equivalent actions, Immediate actions, Swift actions. It boggles the mind. Can this be simplified further while remaining flexible? Can casting times be restored?

Speed.
The current approach to speed is to list the distance, in squares a character can move on one move equivalent action. For humans this is 6, dwarves, halflings and gnomes its a 4. Armor penalizes speed.

What I'm considering for phoenix is to take a step back and look at 10 as the default distance of a move action. I'm trying to get to a point to where you can move or act but not both. But that's elicited some groans from my players so I backtracked a bit before hitting on this thought: Even in 3e you can "adjust" 5' and still make any other action, even a move action.

Now, what if you can "adjust" more the 5'? There are current feats for this and they are quite powerful. This and a couple of other thoughts brought me to this plan:


On your turn you have one action. How far you can move depends on the action's speed. You have a move of 10 (race/class mods not withstanding) and the action will cost from 0 to 10 to perform. Heavier weapons are slower. Higher level spells take up more time. You can move 9 squares and still cast a 1st level spell, but only 4 squares and cast a 6th level spell.

Speed can also be placed on as a limiter for feats. Power Attack, for example, can slow the weapon down.

You only get one attack roll on your turn. If you use two weapon fighting you accept a penalty equal to the die of the offhand weapon to the attack roll - if you hit you roll the damage of both weapons, but strength damage bonuses are only applied once (your strength is split between the two weapons). The two weapon fighting feat would half the attack penalty (from 4 for a dagger to 2). Ambidexterity would halve it again (minimum 1).

Higher level martial characters don't get more attacks, they deal more damage on the attacks they make.

Finally, since I feel it is important for spell casters to have a casting vulnerability window as in 2e, all spells take a round to cast. The effect is resolved the round after the spell begins. This is a major nerf though, one that will require buffs in other areas which I have in mind once I get back to the subject of magic.

Thoughts on this?

 

[Michael Morris]

Hit Points

Hit points and damage, and how they are handled, control the pacing of the fights in the game. They have a lot of tradition tied to them, but at the same time they can put a lock on the upper levels of the game.

1e & 2e (I don't remember basic) only gave out 10 hit dice. After that you got 1 hit point or s. 3e simplified this to giving hit dice every level until 21st, then we only see 2 hit points / level. Phoenix engine will go to 30 levels.

The distance between hit point pools becomes problematic around 20th level. That's 20 hit points per con modifier increase. Also, 20 hit points per hit die change. A wizard with no con modifier will have 40 hit point on average, to a barbarian with an 18 con having 200, 5x as much. If the attacks of the monsters deal 20 points each, the wizard goes down in 2 hits, the barbarian in 10. But these are averages - because of the dice there's a spread, so a 10d6 damage trap could kill the wizard, but never seriously hurt the barbarian, roughly speaking.

Some amount of hit point divergence is ok, but I get the feeling that, for the longest time the game has been running on tradition here and not on math.

First off. How many swings should an character take, on average, before dropping? 1? 2? 3?

I like 3 - it has a baseball strikes feel. Now, what is average damage? The d6 is the most common damage die. It's average roll is 3.5, so three swings is 10.5. This also turns out to be the average roll of a d20.

So fighters, with 10 hp at 1st level (con not withstanding) can take three hits. Other classes take progressively less...

Phoenix, like 5e, is based around the notion that your ability scores are your target numbers. If someone wants to hit you with a missile they must hit your dexterity score. If they want to bash you up close they have to hit either your dexterity (if you elect to dodge) or your strength (if you elect to parry with a shield). Constitution is base hit points for everyone. If you have a 14 con, you have 14 hit points. And since 3d6 is the assumed rolling method for the average person (PC's being heroes, they still use point by or 4d6 drop) the average hit points are 10.5 - before training.

My inclination is to allow each class to have a base hit point total as well, equal to the hit die of the class. Then all characters add twice their character level in hit points. This leads to this hp spread (Assume a 10 con).

Hit
Die  1  2  3  4  5
d4   16 18 20 22 24
d6   18 20 22 24 26
d8   20 22 24 26 28
d10  22 24 26 28 30
d12  24 26 28 30 32

The separation of hit point scores remains tight across all levels, con being equal. A high con is noticable, consider a dwarf barbarian with a 19 con - 33 hit points to the elven wizard with a 10 con's 16. This is slightly more than double, but that's the widest gap and it actually closes as we go up in level. At 20th level the barbarian has 71 hit points, and the wizard has 54.

The gap hasn't changed at all, but the proportion has. The hit point amounts are also ultimately lower.

But shouldn't barbarians have amazing toughness? Well, they do, and the hit die system from 5e I think is a wonderful way to represent this - but why have it outside the fight? Why not let characters roll these in the fight?

So yeah, the barbarian has 71 active hit points, but he has 20d12 hp on reserve and will roll an average of 130 points of healing over the course of the adventuring day. The wizard will roll an average 50 over the course of the day with his 20d4.

The attacks of the game are geared towards these understandings. So, at 20th level, a 40 damage trap is serious regardless of who it hits, and a 14d6 is potentially fatal with it's average of 49.5 damage to any party member. Yet after the smoke clears, who recovers faster? The barbarian.

Meanwhile, this approach does much to ease the pressure off the cleric and druid. Cure wounds is a gold spell, and unless you want these two classes to be mandatory for all parties there must be a way to recover from damage. So a party with a cleric can endure a lot more, but a party without one (or a druid) is still able to hold its own and make up for the lack in some other way.

Speaking of Cure Wounds, this is its current draft

Cure Wounds
Valran Conjuration [Healing]
Range: Touch

This spell heals the subject for a number of the subject's hit dice per level.


So, cast as a 3rd level spell on a fighter the spell heals 3d10 damage. On a wizard it's good for 3d6...

Which brings me to the last point of this discussion, what are the hit dice of the classes? I like 5e's die move for dwarves bit. For that to work, no class can have a d4 or d12 hit die by default. We have ten classes, and d8 is the average remaining, yet martial classes should have some hit point edge on magical classes. So I decided to have 3 classes have a d6, 4 classes have a d8 and 3 classes have a d10 hit die. All three classes with a d10 are martial, all three d6's are magical, so that means there are two martial classes with a d8 and two magical classes with a d8, which creates a smooth crossover. That's the logic behind it - here's the list.

Fighter - d10
Barbarian - d10
Ranger - d10
Monk - d8
Rogue - d8
Cleric - d8
Sorcerer - d8
Druid - d6
Wizard - d6
Bard - d6

Why does the sorcerer go up to d8 and the druid down to d6? Well, for starters, the druid can heal himself better than any class in the game. Not only with gold cure effects but also with green status ailment effect removal. Second, the sorcerer needs something to set him apart from the wizard. While the wizard's core spell list cries out elementalist, the sorcerer fills the combat arcane caster role. There's also a color balance to consider.

Valra - d10, d8, d8, d6 32
Balcra - d8, d8, d6, d6 28
Sodra - d10, d8, d8, d8 34
Shunra - d10, 10, d8, d6 34
Abora - d10, d10, d6, d6 32

Blue is the brainy color so its classes overall lag notably behind with 28 points total. Sodra and Shunra are tied for first, Abora and Valra aren't far off at second. The Sodra and Shunra classes will have the fewest skill points while Balcra will have the most once those allotments are chosen.

Could the hit die balances be closer? Maybe, but probably not without disrupting the understood roles of the classes from prior editions, or the mentality of the alignments as they stand. So I like this current array.

Thoughts?

I encourage any commentary - it doesn't look good to read over a thread where one person is doing all the posting.