Abilities as the Core - uh yeah...

[CuRoi]

I may not engage further in this thread because you are designing a game that I would not have much interested in playing.

I very much appreciate the straightforward response! Thanks again for some insight on site design. As mentioned, it is very much in early stages (for both the game design and the site design). I wa sinitially just toying around with some ideas and figured it WAS probably just something I would like to play - making my own version essentially. However, I just keep seeing threads come up which point toward some of the same design desicions I have made. Enlightened Grognard from a few months back, the Mike Mearls musings and other posts.

Originally whne I started posting here last year, I tried to get some action going aorund this idea in a now defunct 3.5 design subforum. But it was already abandonded by that time.

At any rate, thanks again!

Oh and on Joomla being overkill - yeah it could be, but it was just quicker to install it and start adding articles. Besides, now that I know the template might be confusing, I can just swap it out with soemthing else

 

[CuRoi]

I am going out on a limb here because I know there are people who want to see armor as DR... but I don't like DR. Not just here but anywhere it is found I would see it stamped out. Here is how things unfold.

Here's the funny thing: I pretty much agree with you

I've always resisted armor as DR for just the reasons you detail. It crept into this idea and latched because the whole attribute attacks/defense at the core. It just seemed more intuitive for someone to attack Dexterity to hit a target and then Armor intercepts the damage if the target is hit. But I do fully agree it could add too many steps to combat, slow things down, and "nerf" martial classes.

I think I have a few things in place that will keep it from nerfing martial classes. Namely, Magic and special materials give a bonus to a weapon's damage (and only damage). This in turn will help overcome DR as players increase in level (or at least keep it on a level playing field as opponents armor materials increase as well).

Also, I'm altering the critical rules so that a critical is scored anytime you beat your opponents Dex Defense by 20 - not just a natural 20, and there is no confirmation roll.

So while those wearing armor will suffer less damage overall (sometimes no damage as you point out) they are also prone to being hit by more critical shots from higher level foes because they are less manuverable. True, a mid level fighter in plate mail might be nigh invulnerable to a bunch of Kobolds (until the kobolds switch tactics to a swarming grapple/pin which makes sense against well armored foes). However, if a high level fighter attacks that plate mail wearing mid-level fighter, they'll be doling out some serious damage which the armor will only partly mitigate.

(It may even be the case that very heavy armor becomes standard at mid levels but players return back to lighter armors as they increase in level so as not to sacrifice the manuverability.)

Of course, its all theory and only some limited play testing has been done. Hopefully I can get my group to agree to help me try it out.

I do need an alternate for several things though - the conditions system may be unwieldy in play and the Armor as DR idea may not work as you point out. Still thinking of alternatives...

 

[CuRoi]

I actually would like stats to go the way of the dodo and switch too a complete feat system to improve your attacks and powers as well giving the PC minor abilities.

Very interesting idea - though for this system I'd have to scrap pretty much everything, heh. But I see the simplicity in something like that. Not sure I've ever played an RPG without stats of some kind so I'm not entirely sure it would be my cup of tea...

 

[Wiseblood]

I actually would like stats to go the way of the dodo and switch too a complete feat system to improve your attacks and powers as well giving the PC minor abilities.

When you say stats I assume you mean Ability Scores.

In some systems this would work. I like base stats as they are in d20. I'll admit only Strength gets much attention in this regard from carrying capacity. All other stats IIRC have statistics that are merely Bonus Derivative (ie bonus languages from Intelligence)

These stats are important to me because they acknowledge the existence of the campaign world outside of combat. They lay down fairly simple rules that transcend a pass fail mechanic without adding onerous bookkeeping.

If that doesn't make sense I apologize I am a bit sleepy.

 

[Valetudo]

I think 4th Ed. would actually be able to run quite smoothly without stats using skills and feats to represent your PC.(with a little tweaking of course)

 

[Wiseblood]

Here's the funny thing: I pretty much agree with you

I've always resisted armor as DR for just the reasons you detail. It crept into this idea and latched because the whole attribute attacks/defense at the core. It just seemed more intuitive for someone to attack Dexterity to hit a target and then Armor intercepts the damage if the target is hit. But I do fully agree it could add too many steps to combat, slow things down, and "nerf" martial classes.

I think I have a few things in place that will keep it from nerfing martial classes. Namely, Magic and special materials give a bonus to a weapon's damage (and only damage). This in turn will help overcome DR as players increase in level (or at least keep it on a level playing field as opponents armor materials increase as well).

Also, I'm altering the critical rules so that a critical is scored anytime you beat your opponents Dex Defense by 20 - not just a natural 20, and there is no confirmation roll.

So while those wearing armor will suffer less damage overall (sometimes no damage as you point out) they are also prone to being hit by more critical shots from higher level foes because they are less manuverable. True, a mid level fighter in plate mail might be nigh invulnerable to a bunch of Kobolds (until the kobolds switch tactics to a swarming grapple/pin which makes sense against well armored foes). However, if a high level fighter attacks that plate mail wearing mid-level fighter, they'll be doling out some serious damage which the armor will only partly mitigate.

(It may even be the case that very heavy armor becomes standard at mid levels but players return back to lighter armors as they increase in level so as not to sacrifice the manuverability.)

Of course, its all theory and only some limited play testing has been done. Hopefully I can get my group to agree to help me try it out.

I do need an alternate for several things though - the conditions system may be unwieldy in play and the Armor as DR idea may not work as you point out. Still thinking of alternatives...

The conditions list seems solid to me.

I have been tinkering with the idea of armor granting temporary HP. In my game hp totals are much lower than 3e or 4e. The old "200' swan dive off a clif" is almost certain death at any level. (and I left it at 1d6 per 10'.)

20th level would have more than 50hp and less than 70.

 

[CuRoi]

The conditions list seems solid to me.

I have been tinkering with the idea of armor granting temporary HP. In my game hp totals are much lower than 3e or 4e. The old "200' swan dive off a clif" is almost certain death at any level. (and I left it at 1d6 per 10'.)

20th level would have more than 50hp and less than 70.

I like the idea of HP as armor. Temporary HPs lost up front as you say seems the only way it works. Any other way and you've got wounded PCs dying at the end of the day when they take off their armor. The idea sort of makes the Sunder action useless - not that I have seen that put to much use at any rate in my games.

It seems you would want to track it separately from character HPs though - what if an Armor Wearer got some other Temporary HP (False Life, Vampiric Touch) effect? Does it get too confusing then? Maybe Mending is equiv to an armor Cure Light Also - I wonder then about Natural Armor... I know, overthinking it a bit, but I always try to explore all possibilities.

As for anything that might cause death (200' fall, giant block of Granite falling on the PC, PC points a Crossbow under their chin and pulls the trigger, etc.) I'm inclined to skip rolling damage and let the Defenses do the work. The defenses would then get attacked circumventing hit points and moving straight to the Disabled / Dying / Dead Condition.

 

[rounser]

"4e started to address the complexity issues with methods similar to what I am proposing. I was hopeful. Once I got a hold of the 4e rules, I could see the glimmer of a wonderful, unified system which had thrown off some unnecessary complexity. The 4e designers then took their slick solutions and buried them underneath a pasture of sacred cows where it struggled to break free.

D&D is not a vehicle to design the ultimate elegant unified rules mechanic, and there is no guarantee that such a result will produce a better result than something inelegant and quirky from a design purist's perspective.

If people wanted what's being described here, they'd be all over games like FUDGE, Risus, GURPS, d20 modern. XXV Century used D&D rules but was not D&D. Maybe well past time to step away from this paradigm, which seems to me to be just a continuation of a failed design direction (as far as offering a new "edition" of D&D is concerned).

I think completely eliminating the byzantine eliminates a lot of the game's charm, leading to a result that cannot compete with a quirkier, more charming version of the game in many areas. Unified resolution mechanics are all very well and good, but tread very carefully. That road is well trod, and banality a common side effect. D&D should not be that.

 

[CuRoi]

D&D is not a vehicle to design the ultimate elegant unified rules mechanic, and there is no guarantee that such a result will produce a better result than something inelegant and quirky from a design purist's perspective.

If people wanted what's being described here, they'd be all over games like FUDGE, Risus, GURPS, d20 modern. XXV Century used D&D rules but was not D&D. Maybe well past time to step away from this paradigm, which seems to me to be just a continuation of a failed design direction (as far as offering a new "edition" of D&D is concerned).

I think completely eliminating the byzantine eliminates a lot of the game's charm, leading to a result that cannot compete with a quirkier, more charming version of the game in many areas. Unified resolution mechanics are all very well and good, but tread very carefully. That road is well trod, and banality a common side effect. D&D should not be that.

Those are all valid points, and again I'm still willing to admit that what I am toying with is only something I would ever like to see. Again though, the only reason I posted these ideas was that several threads kept popping up where DnD designers, players etc. were looking for or speculating about some similar changes. I know I'm late to the party and all the "3.75" furor was used up long ago (prior to the phenom that is Pathfinder).

Having started with the real Red Box, I do agree the quirkiness and the "byzantine" were part of the charm. I run 3.5 games with my AD&D DMG at the table because it is still inspirational for just those reasons! For whatever reason though, I'd argue that the the byzantine and quirky lost it's charm after 1e and 2e. In 3e it was just plain byzantine with the "quirky" erased in an attempt to create simulationist rules for everything imagineable. This just led to rules bloat more than anything.

While I did switch to 3e because I liked the changes they made to many of the mechanics, I did feel it changed the role of DMing a bit in the wrong direction. My time spent rules surfing as DM increased significantly. Further, everytime I added a new player or would go to a new group I found out just how "byzantine" these rules were because EVERYONE seemed to have their own interpretation. Yes, with previous editons that was often the case, but more often than not it was a concious decision to deviate from the RAW and apply a house rule.

With 3e it often isn't a concious decision it is simply that they have a totally different interpretation of a rule. The game has been out for 10 years or so and I STILL see people posting what look like house rules as gospel (I'm sure I do the same). It's not that people are dense, it's just the rules are unnecessarily dense.

I'm all for creating rules for everything in a simulationist sense, but I see no reason why you can't do it from a common base. I don't see it as "banal" just "necessary" if complex simulationist rules are your intent and consistency among your player base is at all a concern.

My own personal hope for 4e was that it would introduce some streamlined elements without tossing out the more interesting complexities of the game. They started doing the former and gutted the latter IMO. It just didn't do it for me. Pathfinder is only slightly on a better course, also IMO. They did fix some of the broken 3e elements but then layered on a raftload of new elements.

Point taken that stepping away from the paradigm is perhaps the best course. I've often considered creating my own ruleset entirely for my campaign or mvoing to a new system. However, I'm still a fan of DnD and want to keep something that is mostly recognizable as such for myself and my current players. I do think at the heart you -can- throw out some unnecessary bloat and still call it DnD without making it into something which seems to split the community into two warring factions. I'm not necessarily saying I can do this though - I'm just throwing around ideas which apparently other people have been discussing for a bit as well.

 

[Wiseblood]

@rounser
I do not oppose quirky or Byzantine.

I find that if we use it often it does not matter how complex it is. It does matter if we seldom use it. Or if it is needlessly convoluted an example would be 3e grapple rules. It's not unuseable but it is more complicated than it needs to be. As it stands it doesn't have actual depth just onerous rules that take longer to resolve than other attacks, and frequently useless, unless you are tricked out for it.

Spellcasting is Byzanntine and quirky. But gets a lot of use from a broad array of classes. All that use keeps it fresh in our minds.

@CuRoi

Natural armor for monsters is a behind the screen thing imo. If a monster needs to be hard to hit it has a high AC. If it needs to be tough it has high HP. I'm not saying change the monster to challenge PC's more like the monster is like this, because it is. Monster abilities do not need to be based on how many hd it has. 3e kept running into problems trying to shoehorn monsters into a level format that's why so many have a racial bonus to skills.

That sounds like making a rule to govern things and making another to circumvent the governing rule. I tend to just eliminate both since they are there to prop up the cr system which can be a bit iffy.


On the other hand,
If you are talking about PC's and Enhancement bonuses to natural armor.
The spell or item may need to be nerfed.

I had not intended to grant HP for shields. As backwards as that sounds the shield does it's job when you aren't getting hit because of the AC bonus. I had also considered the Reflex bonus per 4e with regard to shields.


I had hopes that 4e would be less high powered and more high fantasy with an ardent return to exploration. Perhaps doing for exploration what feats did for customization.

Or perhaps

I have hopes that 5e will be less high powered and more high fantasy
with an ardent return to exploration. Perhaps doing for exploration what feats did for customization.

Yeah, both I think.