Are you sticking with the D&D six scores? There something to be said for modification and clarification, because Int/Wis tend to get confused, and Cha has always been misunderstood. A relabeling and refocus might help: Strength, Intelligence, Perception, Agility, Health, and Personality (or perhaps Influence). That might make it a little easier to tie skill-type checks to ability scores.
If I were going to rename the scores, I would go with Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Knowledge, Awareness, and Charisma. I don't think Charisma is misunderstood particularly, and the physical stats look fine to me. Intelligence and Wisdom are the troublesome ones.
However, the six classic scores are so central to D&D, from the very first days of the game, that I'm reluctant to mess with them. I don't know... anyone else want to weigh in? How important are the "classic names" to you?
2. Wound / Hit points. Perhaps I missed it, but what about using the CON/Health score as the "life point" value, with each class getting some bonus (e.g. +1 for MU or cleric, +2 for Rogue, +3 for fighter) to Con/Health at first level.
As currently written, both life points and hit points are dictated strictly by class and level. I thought about incorporating Con into this formula--very, very briefly. But that puts far too much weight on Con compared to the other scores. One of the things I wanted to do in this game was make core combat stats and class abilities mostly independent of ability scores.
Con is already one of the most important stats for any PC, since you use it for "death saves" and resisting some of the nastier status effects (poison, disease, etc.). It doesn't need more to do.
3. Races. Haven't seen a lot of follow-on race discussion but if you're firmly separating race and class, there should probably be at least a small mechanical value to differentiate choice of race. I'd suggest a small ability adjustment (+1 or +2), and oe or two small flavor abilities.
That's more or less what I have in mind, yes. Still tinkering with the way nonhumans work, but I think it will involve all nonhumans being multi-classed; elves are multi-classed _____/magic-user, dwarves are multi-classed _____/fighter, halflings are multi-classed _____/thief. The idea is that magic-user, fighter, and thief are innate talents for elf, dwarf, and halfling respectively, so they all have some basic ability, but it's instinctive rather than trained. An elven fighter/MU would consider herself a fighter.
(I ran the numbers and found that multi-classing is fairly balanced with a simple rule: A multi-classed PC combines the best stats and the class features of each class, and has a class level of 2/3 her character level. So a 12th-level elven fighter/MU combines the life, hit points, base AC, and attack bonus of an 8th-level fighter with the spell bonus and magic resistance of an 8th-level MU; along with fighter talents, fighter multi-attack, and MU spells, all at 8th level.)
Spell casting. With the sorcerer-like casting (spells known and slots per day), how about some added flexibility: you can use up a higher level spell slot to cast an additional spell of a that lower level you know, or you can use up two spell slots of one level to cast an additional spell of the next higher level that you know.
I sort of took for granted that MUs could burn high-level slots for lower-level spells, but you're right, I should call that out specifically in the rules. I'm reluctant to allow going the other way, even at a 2-for-1 (or more) ratio. There's always been an issue in D&D with casters "going nova," and allowing MUs to burn up their low-level slots for high-level spells would exacerbate it.
There's been discussion of "Profession" skills, what about adding "Craft"-type skills to that list. I'd generate a list of both, define what they apply to, and let the player choose a Profession and Craft at first level. Each level give them a point to improve a Profession or Craft (and existing one, or choose a new one).
I'd include crafts in professions. I'd rather not have a skill-point-type system, though. That's way too complicated for a mechanic whose main purpose is adding a bit of flavor. PCs are adventurers first and foremost; they aren't going to be spending a lot of time sweating over a forge or sitting at a loom. Professions, if I end up including them, are just to encourage players to think of their characters as more than Fighty McFighterson and Master-Caster.
Recommend using the 3E/4E cyclic initiative system, d20 based. It's simple and works pretty well.
Yeah, I lean toward some form cyclic initiative... although... hmm. Declare-roll-resolve is clunky, but it does have its virtues. Aside from putting that edge of danger into spellcasting, it creates the feeling that everything is happening simultaneously. Cyclic initiative often feels like "everybody freezes into statues, I do my thing, then I freeze into a statue and someone else comes to life."
I may have to test them both at the table and see how they play out. If the game were as complicated as 4E, it wouldn't even be a question, but this system looks like being simple enough for declare-roll-resolve to be feasible.
I'd use the 4E action system (Attack action, move action, free action) for combat, as it's also simple.
Yup, that's what I'm doing--although the 4E terms are "standard, move, minor." Trying to avoid the need for minor actions, but the cleric may force me to incorporate them.
Either ban spellcasting and missile use outright if you're adjacent to an enemy (next square if minis are used, DM's call if not), or better, require the PC to make a skill check (Int or Dex/Agility) to cast a spell or use a missile weapon adjacent to a foe: success and the attack/spell goes off, failure and it does not.
This was the direction I was going, but the constraint would have to apply any time you start your turn next to an enemy. Otherwise you can just move away and do your thing. (You see this a lot in 3E/4E, where a caster menaced by a melee foe can shift or 5-foot step away, then cast in perfect safety. Kinda defeats the point.)
This is one argument for declare-roll-resolve; interruption mechanics arise naturally from the system instead of having to be kludged in.
I'd allow the concept of delayed/readied actions -- so a PC could delay an action in case the enemy spellcaster casts a spell.
There's a guy named KarinsDad on these forums whose sig says, "The first sign of a broken rule is when someone suggests that the way to stop it is by readying an action." I avoid basing anything on the assumption that people are going to be using readied actions. I may have to include readying rules if I go with cyclic initiative, but readying should be something that happens in exceptional cases.
I'd expand the weapon list slightly, but tie some rules to categories.
Mm... I want to keep weapons pretty simple. Each weapon gets a damage die, an indication of whether it's one- or two-handed, and a range in feet, if it can be used ranged. The standard for melee weapons is 1d10 for two hands, 1d8 for one hand. The standard for ranged weapons is 1d8 for two hands, 1d6 for one hand. Weapons with smaller damage dice than the standard are generally used only by certain classes or in special situations.
There may be a couple of special cases, of course. Crossbows will probably do 1d10 or even 1d12, but take a standard action to reload.
For simplicity I'd use a single +2 modifier to cover all "combat advantage" scenarios for simplicity: attacking from higher ground, flanking a target, attacking a prone/stunned opponent, etc. Anything the DM needs to make a snap ruling on falls under the "Combat advantage" category.
The idea of a single, blanket "combat advantage" bonus was one of 4E's best changes. I'm definitely keeping it.
