Maybe I didn't make myself very clear.
Compare:
- Str 17: +3 to everything strength based. (3e)
- Str 17: +2 to hit, +1 damage, +3 HP, +3 to Fort. Defense. (Your earlier post.)
The first is much simpler. The fact that the rule used to derive the ability modifier table (below) of 3e is (ability - 10)/2 doesn't really matter, just that the same ability modifier applies to everything using that ability.
Ahhhh.I see what you mean. So 17 Dex. (for example) is just "+3 to hit w/missles and AC". Str. 16 is just +2 to hit and damage and HP. I geddit.
Yes, that makes sense/is simpler.
Ok, I again managed to say something else than I meant...
If the rules are that 8 or lower give penalties and 15 or higher give penalties, what is the point of making a distinction between 9 and 14? I.e. almost everyone will be as good at dodging due to their dexterity if 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 give neither bonuses or penalties.
Oh, I see. Since there is no bonus or penalty, the Reflex save (for the sake of example) is the same for someone with a Dex. 9 or/to a Dex. 14.
Well, if we're making it a "roll under" mechanic...maybe I change the "Defense" spread to, while still being class-based, is simply a base 1-4 in each category, then +Ability score. So all thieves have a base Ref. of 4 +Dex. score. Thus, 9, 10, 11, etc. still make a difference/have some effect on the character. But for the bonuses.penalties to hit and AC would still only apply to 8 and under or 15+.
It could not be said having a point or two to avoid a dragon's breath attack "doesn't matter" or is "as good." Many many a PC have met their end with a roll 1 off (above or below) what they needed.
Ok, so wouldn't it be better to define 12-13 (the likeliest result) as "above normal", so there would be less of a need to reroll?
I don't see why that would be necessary. The vast majority of the vast population is going to be "average" with marginal differences. The world is full of "normal" people...and adventurers are normal people too...but better at this or that.
Being exceptionally strong or fast enough to actually improve one's attacks or speed or what have you doesn't seem to me to need to be lower than 15.
Basically, what I mean is that a dragon could have a single attack value, e.g. +10 for a dragon of a certain color and size. Then the dragon could use its breath weapon and roll against the targets' Reflex, or use its roar (frightful presence) and roll against Will, or its bite and roll against AC/physical defense.
(That doesn't mean all monsters have to have one attack value. Young dragons, for example, might not yet have mastered their breath weapon very well and so had a lower attack bonus with it.)
That's not possible if typical dragon-hunting adventurers have Reflex and Will in the range 1-10 while their AC is 40-50, for example. Then they'd always be hit by the breath weapon and never by the bite.
I'm not sure how that would work...and I may be missing the point, but I can say with authority that the style/system I'm working on here will have nothing remotely close to ACs of 40 or 50! Yikes!
Individual characters should, of course, be better at some defenses, but the overall scale should be the same for that to work.
Annnnnd I've become lost again. Sorry.
The overall scale is the same.
Every Class A will have a starting Defense base of X (which I will now make 1-4) that will increase with level. Ability B with a score of Y receives Z bonus (1-4). Race choice may apply an additional bonus (not more than 1). Magic items might offer an additional bonus (I'm gonna go on a limb here and say 1-4
.
This should keep all scores, without gross misuse of the system (i.e. obscene doling out of magic items), below 20 (until characters get to very high levels, well beyond the scope of this beginner/start set).
That's how I like to play too. Unfortunately, it requires some extra work in 3e and even more so in 4e. The assumption of having a certain level of magic items is build in too tightly.
Yeah, we're not going to worry about that in this game. lol.
If a fighter's average hp is 5/level, but average damage only increases by 1/level then a duel between two equally experienced fighters takes longer the higher level they are.
Why would average damage be increasing per level?...and why does it take longer the higher level they are?
You might consider that a problem or maybe not. I know 3e combat tends to take more and more time at higher levels, which slows the game down. I don't usually want to spend the whole session running a single combat encounter.[/QUOTE]
No. Definitely not. We don't want to 'bog things down.'
I think that alignment is a great tool - for NPCs. They're as excellent a shorthand as defining them as lazy, war-like or insane. Defining an orc as chaotic and evil is fine. It's a quick way of saying he's impulsive, won't stick to his word and does bad things to others - using two words instead of twenty. You could add other terms - perhaps the orc is likewise cunning but proud. In four words, you've breathed more life into your orc than alignment could ever hope to do.
I don't think every NPC needs to be defined in terms of good and evil, law and chaos. Only those whose actions can really be rolled up into such actions. The local bartender may be just kind, whereas the local paladin is certainly good. The sheriff is a lawfully-minded individual. The alley-high roller cutpurse the party is trying to track down is chaotic and slippery, but neither definable as good or bad - perhaps he is simply craven and self-absorbed.
PCs would define themselves by one or more (four?) adjectives. The terms of alignment could among those, but many, many more might be available. Heroic, Untrustworthy, Calm, Berserk, Far-sighted, etc.
If these traits are strong enough then perhaps spells, magic items or creature abilities could be tied to utilize these traits. Perhaps a magic portal will only open to those who are far-sighted. A spell might protect against a greedy individual. A temple might bestow a blessing upon good individuals. Vile creatures might seek out agents of chaos to spread mayhem. And so on.
Great post/ideas. Can certainly work in a "pick 4 traits"...with one of those being "Alignment" and the rest more "personality" type stuff.
I really like Bumdool, but rather than simply make her evil, I'd rather see her as 'the Mistress of Dark Fates'. She's a poisoner and consorts with the dead, listening to their secrets as they drown in her bog. She's cruel and uncaring, but prefers victims to come to her, rather than seek out people to kill. Her priests specialize in predicting doom - those of civilizations and of other individuals. Those seeking to slay or bring down another seek out Bumdool's priests to learn how to do so - if they do not fall prey to her traps and poisons in gaining such knowledge (truly, those who die were not wise enough to know the secrets they sought).
All sounds good to me. No reason you couldn't do that with her.
On Anwyre, I suggest moving her to "unaligned". She watches over the whirl of the world below, but believes in allowing things to unravel to their ultimate fate. She grants power and knowledge to those with strength and wisdom to seize it, but is apathetic to those who are unwilling to find their own way in the world. Those who worship her believe that as long as they persevere, the aid they need will be present when it is truly needed, and that every thing has its place and reason for being.
I like it. but isn't this pretty much the case by making her "Neutral"? I suppose, by your description above, I could/should specify her clerics being permitted to be any alignment instead of Neutral or Good.
"Unaligned" is not going to be one of our 4 alignment options. That just always irked me (struck me as making a change for the sake of being stupid) "What's your Alignment?" "My alignment is that I am Unaligned." "Whuuuuut?"
Most of the other gods I feel are pretty much spot on where they should be and "feel" right to me.
Well thank ye.
-SD
