A new d20 product

[kenjura]

Disclaimer: I guarantee this will draw great criticism. Keep objectivity in mind, please.

Oh yeah, and don't judge based on my low number of posts, either. I've been here for years.

To begin:

This post is to describe a new d20 product. No, I have no publisher, though it's easy enough to go pdf. This product is years in the making, and has been playtested for months in several different games with different DM's. It's got that much going for it. I fully intend to publish it, and have several leads into the market.

The point of this post is that I just want to see if it's got too many problems to ever float.


The idea is this. D&D has a certain "implied setting", that being your quasi-medieval world of adventuring, rescuing beautiful dragons from ravening princesses, and saving the world. With swords and fireballs. D20 modern has its own flair with its implied setting, which needs no description. Star Wars d20, well, you get the idea.

This book provides a system of rules and roleplaying advice for a new implied setting. Serious d&d. Same old world with a serious twist, for more serious players.

If you don't like the idea, fine. It wouldn't be the first d20 book that went unliked.

In a serious setting, adventurers don't just sling fireballs in the royal court and walk away with their heads high. Dragons don't fall to lucky 3rd-level adventurers (except maybe wyrmlings), and wizards can't figure out what "level" they are by comparing their fireball ranges.

Fighting characters can customize their style with dozens of fighting feats, all designed to fit and balance together, instead of splayed across a hundred core and d20 books.

Magic-users can choose from many variants, whether your standard memorize, fire-and-forget spells, or Mage(tm)-esque subjective wizards who alter reality with thoughts.

The system is designed to take all the mechanics worth taking and distill them into a lean, robust engine, upon which flavor is added by the players and DM (with suggestions from the developers), as opposed to forced flavor (such as all rangers using two-weapon fighting, to make a rough example).

Kind of like linux to windows, except with as much support for the old rules as possible.


Here's some crunchy stuff:

All classes get a bonus feat every even level. (This really works in playtest, it isn't so radical)
Most classes get a class-specific "special ability" every odd level. Those with spellcasting ability get them less often or not at all.
This way, every character gets something every single level.

Most classes' special abilities were re-written with the primary purpose of making them stand apart from other classes more, as well as ensure balance of utility and overall power both across the scale of levels and across the range of classes. Several characters share special abilities; for example, both Druids and Rangers can choose Favored Terrains. Every class can do at least one thing others can't.

All special abilites have a clear progression. Everything comes in larger, more meaningful "chunks". The rate of progession is constant, i.e. at an unchanging interval of levels.

The Cleric and Druid are re-designed to be less like weak, fighting wizards and more like Clerics and Druids. Clerics spell lists are built entirely from their domains (they get more at later levels, and virtually all of the domains have been at least tweaked). The concept of Greater Domain Powers allows high-level Clerics to be more unique, more focused to their domains.

Many spells were tweaked up and down, but on the whole they remain intact.


In playtest, the system has held up well in low and high levels (no chance to test middle levels yet). On the whole, it allows pc's more mechanical support; I won't say more options, because the inherent nature of D&D allows countless options, but the system supports more directly. Characters are slightly weaker at 1st-level than in 3e, but they grow significantly more powerful in very high levels, hopefully staving off the need for epic levels. As an epic-level DM, I know that whole thing just doesn't need to be touched in a serious game.

I'll post some examples, say what you will. I'm interested in criticism.

I'm not interested in flames or meaningless discouragement, of course, but honest remarks, compliments and (most certainly) complaints are welcome.

To anyone who's spent all the time to read this, thank you, and I hope you like some of the ideas presented.

- Kenjura

 

[Ricochet]

It sounds very interesting, I would love to try this game.

 

[kenjura]

Defense:
Fine Chain Shirt, +4 armor bonus. Light encumbrance. 25%

fortification.

Encumbrance:
Light, +6 max dodge bonus, 10% spell failure, full speed.
Dodge (Dex) +3
Total AC: 19, Parry +3, Dodge +6 (28 versus one opponent)

What does it all mean?

Acrobatics means he can jump, tumble, and balance.
Athletics is for enduring stress over time, especially running or

swimming.
Cosmpolitan is for navigating cities, finding individuals, and staying

out of harm's way. Think of it as Wilderness Lore for urban areas.
Discipline is a skill combining old uses of Concentration with new uses

for mental focus, such as meditation and great mental exertion.
Legerdemain is a more robust version of Pick Pocket or Sleight of Hand.
Mercantilism is for running a business, buying and selling goods

(including haggling), and understanding other businesses.
Perception combines Spot and Listen into a single roll. Yes, it works.
Security is for locating and bypassing locks, traps, and other things

meant to keep rogues out.
Stealth combines Hide and Move Silently. Again, you'd believe it if

you saw it.
Tactics is for judging an opponent's ability, gauging the morale of an

enemy force, and gaining the upper hand against less intelligent

opponents.

With Ambidexterity (1st-level only) and Two-Weapon Fighting, Raelain

can fight with his signature rapier and mein gauche (dagger) with no

penalties in either hand. Without Ambidexterity, his offhand would

suffer a -2 to hit and damage (in lieu of inflicting half his Strength

for bonus damage). With Ambidexterity, both of his arms are equally

strong. That is, after all, the definition of the term. He has no

offhand, and thus can suffer no penalties for it.

With Dodge 2, he can choose a single opponent in melee whom he

threatens, and he gains a +6 dodge bonus versus that opponent. He

loses this bonus in any situation where he would lose his Dex bonus to

AC.

With Parry 1, he can choose a single opponent in melee whom he

threatens, and he gains a +3 parry bonus versus that opponent. Offhand

Parry gives him a further +2 when weilding his mein gauche.

Furthermore, with Parry-Riposte, attacking Raelain and missing provokes

an attack of opportunity. Combat Reflexes allows him 3 per round,

though only his Parry target provokes for missing. Parry stacks with

Dodge.

Combat Mobility by itself grants an additional 5-foot step every round,

regardless of other actions.

Lunging Attack means that every time he attacks, he may take a 5-foot

step toward his enemy before doing so. This does not increase his

reach to 10-feet.

Combat Action allows him to take an addtional attack action during a

full attack. *This is no longer automatic*...it's all part of the

balance. You'll notice there is no +0/-5/-10/-15 in this system. It

is arguably unreasonable, and inarguably too complicated. This is

coming from a DM who's done a lot of high- and epic-level gaming. The

system holds up even with this rather large change.


You may notice the lack of magic items. Magic items are no longer

assumed. There is information for running non-magical games (eww),

low-magic, and high-magic games. Only in high-magic games will

12th-level characters have 5 or more magic items each (for example),

and only in those games should pc's ever *expect* magic items.


There you have it. A random character, generated fairly. I can make a

hundred more. I intend for this system to play much like the core

rules, but most importantly I want the rules to take a back seat to the

game. To do this, I've tried to streamline the system as much as

possible.


-Kenjura

 

[Guilt Puppy]

First, sounds good, and I don't think you need to tread so carefully about it -- you're not making absurd enough claims to warrant any flames (you're definitely not trying to sell it as some "be-all, end-all" infinitely better system.)

What you describe sounds like a solid d20 product, not too different from others in a fundamental sense... If wanting to make a d20 product was flame-bait, I don't see why so many publishers visit these forums.

Personally speaking, it sounds like the sort of thing I'd love to have, assuming the price is right Actually, it sounds like a fix for a lot of the things I don't quite like about D&D as-is (other systems work better for my style of fantasy in certain respects, but on a purely mechanical level d20 is the most fluid, well-engineered system I've seen, so I stick with it.)

There's really a lot of praise I could pour on to the basic idea, but I have a feeling you know it all already -- I imagine it's why you took the time to make the system. So, on to criticism:

All classes get a bonus feat every even level. (This really works in playtest, it isn't so radical)
Most classes get a class-specific "special ability" every odd level. Those with spellcasting ability get them less often or not at all.
This way, every character gets something every single level.

I've seen this done as a solution to a lot of classes (the whole system in the ELH essentially revolves around it), and it never really sat well. It seems like a kludge people seem to apply to a class-based system when they really want to be playing a skill-based system: Really, why not just get rid of classes and have feats at every level, or even just points that you can spend on things like skills, feats, et cetera... Or, an entirely different system

That said, it doesn't mean it's a bad approach. The appeal of a class-based system is the ability to play archetypal characters with your own variation -- it can be accomplished in skill-based systems, but it tends to lose a lot of its flavor (and takes a lot more work.) D&D really revolves around its archetypes -- IMO, to call a game D&D requires a class-based approach.

Which it does sound like you're taking... Just be careful to avoid making the classes too generalized. Each should have its own distinct flavor, right out of the box, which can be changed and manipulated into something else, even something entirely different, but is at least there to begin with. It does sound like you have this in mind (you mention each class having at least one exclusive ability), but I just wanted to emphasize its importance -- I haven't seen a class yet that uses a feat-system without becoming a little bland (and yes, that includes the PHB fighter, albeit to a lesser degree -- "has a lot of combat feats" does have its own flavor to it, that just disappears when every fighter-type is like that, just with a different list.).

Also important: If feats are really a central game mechanic, make sure they're solid. A good feat, IMO, must first describe some special thing a character can do, and then provide rules to back it up. A lot of feats I've seen do this the other way around -- they come up with something that is nice to be able to do from a meta-gaming perspective, and then maybe tack on some sort of flavor to describe it. Of course, flavor can be taken too far, and I've seen a lot of other feats that are just too weird, and have weird rules to back them up -- in other words, feats should be fairly general, something it would make sense for any character to be able to do. If it's not general, it should be a class or prestige-class ability (given your feat approach, you might get away with using a lot of class-specific feats). A good feat should be elegant and simple, both flavorly and mechanically. (The PHB feats remain the best example of this, IMO.)

Another potential problem with your suggestion is that it hedges out new players... D&D is easy to learn because most of the classes can be played "out of the box," with a fairly minimal but still impactful amount of selection required. Your approach ups this -- it sounds like players will have to be making choices pretty much every level, even if they want to achieve something fairly archetypal. People familiar with the system already will have no problem with this, but novice players will struggle... Of course, this is less of a problem considering yours would be more of a niche market of veteran players, but it's worth mentioning.

Finally, will the system deviate enough to make other materials unuseable? I can see doing a little bit of conversion, but if I'd have to totally rewrite any prestige class I see, I'd be much less interested. Conversion is especially important when you're sitting in the DM's seat -- will an NPC in a module or a monster from the Manual make any sense in the redesigned system? At the very least, is it balanced with existing material, such that a PHB Barbarian can reasonably stand toe to toe with a Barbarian of your design of equal level? If so, then at least game balance won't be particularly interrupted by existing materials (although in-game consistency might be.)

Anyway, a lot of this is probably stuff you've thought about, but it's the most relevant criticism I could find for the given information (I can understand not wanting to post specifics, but that makes it hard to critique the specifics ).

(Oh, and by the way, re: Clerics and domains -- excellent. It's always bugged me that a Cleric of Pelor and a Cleric of Nerull are more similar than just about any two Sorcerors. Dividing all the spells up into domains -- where every domain has a large number of spells, possibly without overlap -- and then just giving Clerics access to only spells within their domains, would be terrific, considering I don't want to do all that work myself )

(edit: Wrote this up before, or rather while, you were posting more specifics... I'll read and respond to those tomorrow probably, but it's sleepy-time now )

 

[kenjura]

http://www.talarie.com/serious/index.html

This is the new website. It's brand new, so it ain't pretty. I posted the first example character (with a correction or two).

- Kenjura

 

[Larry Fitz]

Kenjura,

Your concepts are intriguing, but you are talking about a major departure from D20 in many ways, you are changing spell levels, numbers of feats/level of existing character classes; you seem to be advocating a better combat advancement for Druids/Clerics and also greater access to their domain spells. I don't think anything you're doing will void your ability to use the d20 logo and the SRD, but be careful not to play around with anything WOTC claims as untouchable (like the experience point table). Have you considered taking your ideas and formulating a new system? You seem to want a skill based system but don't want to completely leave D20 behind, if you do it carefully though you might be able to craft a D20 skill based variant. This could accomplish everything you want and woulde be something that is not really out there yet.

 

[kenjura]

Re: Re: A new d20 product

Really, why not just get rid of classes and have feats at every level, or even just points that you can spend on things like skills, feats, et cetera... Or, an entirely different system
IMO, to call a game D&D requires a class-based approach.

I definately know what you're referring to. This system started classless, and I decided to redesign it for classes to match d20 more. 3e is supposed to be part archetype and part custom, that's why they always harp about feats and skills. So, half the time (odd levels) you get class-specific, flavored abilities (spellcasting, lay on hands, favored enemy, etcs), and the other half is customizability. In my playtest experience, feats are usually used to complement a class, but can also provide alternate routes. They fill in the gaps between classes, ideally.

I haven't seen a class yet that uses a feat-system without becoming a little bland (and yes, that includes the PHB fighter, albeit to a lesser degree -- "has a lot of combat feats" does have its own flavor to it, that just disappears when every fighter-type is like that, just with a different list.).
If feats are really a central game mechanic, make sure they're solid.

I decided to tackle the problem head-on. There are over 100 feats in the system currently, and the majority are combat-related (just like regular d&d, heh). These feats fit into 8 pages currently; very few of them have a description more than a couple sentences. Example random feat:

Canny Defense [Extraordinary]
You are conscious of your opponent’s moves in combat and deftly dodge them.
Prerequisites: INT 15+, BAB 1+
Benefit: You gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC.
Series: Each additional feat increases the dodge bonus by +2, the INT requirement by 2, and the base attack bonus requirement by 5.

As far as solidity, most feats are based on real life, to a reasonable extent. Here's one of the oddest feats I can find at a glance.

Double Strike
You strike twice in a single move.
Prerequisites: Two-weapon Fighting, BAB 5
Benefit: When taking a single attack (including attacks of opportunity), you may strike with both weapons. Roll a single attack roll at a -4 penalty; if it hits, roll damage as if you hit with both weapons.


I think your idea of feats and mine agrees greatly. They should be as universal as possible. I suppose I should've known that the majority of universal feats would be combat-related, but then, most feat are either combat- or magic-related in d&d anyway.

Another potential problem..is that it hedges out new players... novice players will struggle.

I intend to address that separately, even going so far as to write up pre-processed archetypal characters for each class, with one or two choices of feat or special ability at each level, to simplify things.

Finally, will the system deviate enough to make other materials unuseable? I can see doing a little bit of conversion, but if I'd have to totally rewrite any prestige class I see, I'd be much less interested.

I designed the system to be as friendly as possible. In many cases in playtest, material ranging from feats, spells, and prestige classes were merged seamlessly into the system. As the DM of one game, I was able to use many d&d and d20 monsters without modifying their stats, except for a house rule in which all monsters received fortification (this was an epic game, so it needed it). The CR's of monsters may be a bit inaccurate in conversion, especially since the monsters won't be taking advantage of any new feats or abilities. However, if you run them as written, assuming any changes (such as the application of Combat Action to allow for multiple attacks per round) necessary, they play just fine.

Prestige classes are a different animal. When I first designed the system, I designed it so it wouldn't need them. Wizards had "arcana", clerics had plenty of new domains with wonky powers, and the idea was that almost any reasonable prestige class ability could be converted directly into a class' special ability by a moderately competent DM.

This is because I'm not fond of prestige classes. I think a prestige class should only exist when the character concept simply cannot be expressed in class and feat selection. I greatly dislike the majority of prestige classes; they are too commonplace, often underflavored, and nobody can decide if they should more or less powerful than classes (how about equal?).

However, 3.5e is looking to revise prestige classes. Hopefully, their ideas and mine will be far closer, and, if that is the case, I'll adapt my system to match. I refuse to make prestige classes that are flavorless, to easy to get into, and either too weak or too strong. But I have no problem with allowing interesting prestige classes, where classes and feats simply cannot provide

re: Clerics and domains

Every PC Cleric in my system started out hating it fiercely, and then they liked it. =)

I've personally made 36 domains, each with one spell per spell level (including 0th). There are less than 5 duplicate spells on all the lists. There are three different healing domains. Here's an example of a domain.

Battle Domain
Lesser Domain Power: +1 morale bonus to hit/dmg, plus you gain 1 martial weapon prof per Int bonus
Greater Domain Power: +2 morale bonus to hit/dmg (+3 at 12th-level, +4 at 16th-level)
0 Know Weapon: Gain proficiency for a short time.
1 Magic Weapon: As 3e
2 Battlemind: Gain +1 competence bonus hit/dmg, +1 dodge bonus to ac, +2d6 temp hit points, +1 competence bonus to Reflex saves
3 Greater Magic Weapon: As 3.5e
4 Magic Vestments: As 3e
5 Battletide: Gain +2 competence bonus hit/dmg, +3 dodge bonus to ac, +6d6 temp hit points, +2 competence bonus to Reflex and Fortitude saves
6 Blessed Weapon: As Greater Magic Weapon, plus you get an additional +1/4 levels of special abilities.
7 Blessed Armor: As Magic Vestments, plus you gain an additional +1/3 levels of special abilities.
8 Battle Mastery: Gain a +4 competence bonus to hit/dmg, +6 dodge to AC, +12d6 temp hp, +4 competence to Ref and Fort saves
9 Mighty Arms: 1 target/4 levels gains +5 weapon and +5 armor as Greater Magic Weapon/Magic Vestments

A cleric with this domain can really kick some butt as a fighting cleric. However, with only two domains to choose from at 1st-level (plus Good, Chaos, Evil, or Law for free), and the high demand for healing spells (which must be taken as a domain), it's a tough choice with all the other domains to choose from.


Well anyway, that should address some concerns. The website http://www.talarie.com/serious/index.html contains more information (or at least it will).

 

[kenjura]

Your concepts are intriguing, but you are talking about a major departure from D20 in many ways...be careful not to play around with anything WOTC claims as untouchable.

That has been a primary concern. I'm not sure what is and isn't sacred, but here's what I haven't changed (though, in some cases, I've provided variant rules to use instead).

The actual class list (no deletions)
PC races (I leave it to the PHB and Savage Species)
Basic feat, ability increase, max ranks, and XP progression for PC's
Hit points (vp/wp variant option exists)
General combat rules (base attack, AC, special actions, AOO's, etc)
Method of gaining XP (variant rules exist, but the core stands)

Here's a few important things that have changed, and warrant verification:
The system requires the point buy method (can be overturned by the DM, of course). As far as I know, point buy doesn't exist in the SRD, and I'm not even allowed to refer to it (as in "use standard point buy in the core rulebook").
Multiclassing penalties (20% XP hit) do not exist. Indeed, there will a DM's option to add minor, but useful rewards to compensate for the inherent disadvantages in multiclassing.
The skill list has been altered. Many deletions, many merges, many additions. The basic mechanic is the same (ranks + modifiers = bonus). I don't know why every d20 product in the world supports the core PHB skills.
I've changed phb feats, like Dodge. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to call a feat "Dodge", especially if it's different.

I'm of the opinion that classes, skills, feats, equipment, and monsters should be completely up to the campaign world developer and the DM. The core skills and feats are not universal, they're for a Greyhawk-ish world of "standard d&d" and couldn't possibly support everyone's playing style. I've tried to expand them without alienating the core system.


I've actually considered making my own system, but I decided it isn't worth it. This system, while one of the most radical out there, is really no more of a departure than d20 Modern or Star Wars d20, which are both valid. I like the marketing opportunities with the d20 license.

-Kenjura

 

[Larry Fitz]

Kenjura put forth the proposition


SNIP!
I'm of the opinion that classes, skills, feats, equipment, and monsters should be completely up to the campaign world developer and the DM. The core skills and feats are not universal, they're for a Greyhawk-ish world of "standard d&d" and couldn't possibly support everyone's playing style. I've tried to expand them without alienating the core system.

SNIP!
...I like the marketing opportunities with the d20 license.

Kenj,

(May I call you Kenj?) D20 Modern and Star Wars D20 are different systems essentially, they differ that much from standard D20. It's why they have a different name. Classes, skills, feats, equipment and monsters are up to the DM, and to a lesser degree the world developer. I say lesser degree because a DM has complete latitude in creating an amalgam of what they like from any number of sources with no regard for what comes from where or how much they change it. A developer has certain legal realities to deal with due to the fact that they intend to make money off a derivation of someone else's work. Take a look at the OGL; research the things that you're changing in their original source material. Make sure you aren't playing with Product Identity. I'm fairly sure you cannot change the Dodge Feat in something you publish, as just one example. I definitely think there is a niche for what you are proposing, but just modifying existing things and calling it your own probably won't fly. I can tell you when we first got involved in D20 publishing Ryan Dancey was extremely helpful and forthcoming, I'm sure there are people on this board that know the SRD and OGL andwhat you can and can't do much better than I do. Hopefully one of them will post to give you a better indication. Good luck with the project.

 

[s/LaSH]

It certainly sounds interesting. I'd be interested to see if you could pull it off; I've always been in favour of more flexible (yet still defined) core classes than prestige classes anyway. They just seem so... 'make it up yourself'.

But if it's all 'made up' together, with a discrete number of elements that work together, it could be very good.