Designing the Perfect D&D

[NoWayJose]

Can a blood magus draw blood from a helpless or dying creature in the same square?

Would you consider starting a campaign at 2nd level, simply so that players can begin as an 'advanced' prestige character? Gameplay-wise, it could be easier to allow initial training to encompass 2 levels and begin as a druid, monk, etc., compared to adventuring once at 1st level, taking a druidic or monkish sabbatical for 2nd level, then rejoining the group. Because if many players are seeking a prestige class at 2nd level, then roleplaying at 1st level will feel more like a prequel, and maybe that prequel adventure could/should be optional?

How does even begin to test for game balance?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Lanefan]

A couple of things leap out...

1. You've got prestige classes for Evoker, Necromancer, etc., but where's Illusionist?

2. I *really* like that you're using what we call "percentile increments" for by-level stat advancement. In our 1e game we've been doing this for ages; we saw how it worked for the Cavalier in 1e's UA and decided to just give it to everybody - modified, of course. The difference in our system is you get some choice at roll-up in which stats advance.

3. For the commoner issue, you might be able to fix it by inserting what amounts to a 0th level, where someone has a bit of skill (proficient with one weapon, maybe) and a few h.p. but doesn't have all the stances etc. of a 1st level. Typical 0th level types might be a town guardsman trained in billyclub, a shepherd who has learned the sling to defend her flock, a caravan guard trained in shortsword, and so forth.

4. I kind of think some (or all?) of your prestige classes might be better as base classes. Prestige classes were never my favourite thing to begin with; and particularly if you're making everyone start at 1st level every time they will become a headache for you down the road. Say for example I've got a great idea for a Ranger - well, I can't start out as a Ranger; I have to slog through several levels of (Fighter?) first. That'll get tiresome if my Fighters keep dying off before they get to Ranger status...

5. Straight-up death at -10 is far easier to grasp and to adjudicate than a variable death point. I know because I tried designing a variable death point system a while back - the two main problems I ran into were a) both DM and player had to remember different numbers for different characters, and b) I couldn't make it interact properly with spells like Death's Door and various cures. We use a system where if you go below 0 you can only be cured to slightly above for a while, the "incurable" duration is set by how far below 0 you went. With a variable death point I'd have to make incurability based on how far between 0 and your death point you'd reached, in effect meaning I'd need a chart for every character. I gave up on the idea.

On the same theme, a simple mechanic we use if you're at or below 0 h.p. to see if you remain conscious is a d20 roll; you need to roll at or below your Con. modified by what you're at. So if you're Con. 13 and you're at -5 h.p. you need to roll 8 or less to remain conscious. Yes this means a low roll is good, but I'm not at all married to the idea that high is always better...

Lanefan

 

[Fifth Element]

A commoner should be able to become an adventurer - at least a Fighter or other simple class - just by doing it, and there needs to be some sort of progression to reflect this.

I disagree, if only because the Jester clearly laid out his goals in designing this system in the OP, and that wasn't one of them.

Fifth El-"some game systems aren't designed for you"-ement

 

[Mercurius]

Excellent stuff, Jester. As I said via XP, I am trying to do something similar - create my own "perfect" D&D, although my project (which I will probably post in the 4E forum) is more of a variant of 4E, mainly because I want to keep it fully compatible with 4E products.

Do you have a PDF of your game document that you would be willing to share? My email is jonnybardo at yahoo dot com

 

[the Jester]

Just a quick thing or two-

1. Druid is a prestige class because I wanted to start with the "classic four" as the base and work outward from there. It's actually the one class I'm most likely to move to a base class, but I am going to wait and see how I like it as a prc first.

2. No illusionist because I haven't yet written it. It will come in time.

3. No PDF yet- there are still a few bits I'm working on. For instance, I haven't yet thrashed out magic items and treasure, and that's a major piece of the whole. But when I have it ready I'll let you know!

 

[baradtgnome]

Hi Jester,

That is much to digest. I better understand how you intend to implement the slower progression. Dialing way back on the stat increases makes your proposal far more feasible. Though I don't like the feel of 4E from reading it (full disclosure - never played it), I do like the attempt to make the jump from level to level a smaller order of magnitude. Monsters that were a challenge at first level should not suddenly be no challenge at say third level. However I can see how 4E does not go far enough to meet your requirement.

Now it depends on the challenges faced (aka monsters). The variation from 1st to 10th level might only be +5 to hit say, or a doubling or tripling of hit points. How do you move the monsters up so that they are a challenge for your 10th level characters but not an auto kill for the poor first level character.

Different question - as described above that a lower level character might have to behave as a side kick in a game to a high level character. Not as a DM but as a character - how do you feel about that? Do you want to be a side kick? Or how long would you expect to be a side kick before you could sit at the big boys table in a game like this? I have played characters that in some ways act as followers to other characters - but that was my choice for that character personality, not enforced by game rules.

 

[baradtgnome]

5. Straight-up death at -10 is far easier to grasp and to adjudicate than a variable death point. I know because I tried designing a variable death point system a while back - the two main problems I ran into were a) both DM and player had to remember different numbers for different characters, and b) I couldn't make it interact properly with spells like Death's Door and various cures. We use a system where if you go below 0 you can only be cured to slightly above for a while, the "incurable" duration is set by how far below 0 you went. With a variable death point I'd have to make incurability based on how far between 0 and your death point you'd reached, in effect meaning I'd need a chart for every character. I gave up on the idea.

On the same theme, a simple mechanic we use if you're at or below 0 h.p. to see if you remain conscious is a d20 roll; you need to roll at or below your Con. modified by what you're at. So if you're Con. 13 and you're at -5 h.p. you need to roll 8 or less to remain conscious. Yes this means a low roll is good, but I'm not at all married to the idea that high is always better...

Lanefan

I can see where you are looking for a certain 'cinematic' feel to the wounded, dying & deaths door status - and that variable negative does not fit your model. However, we use a variable model to counter the instant death that higher level monsters are capable of doing when characters HPs are very low. We use -10 or 1/3 of HPs. Stealing a style from 4E there is a roll every round to see if you become stabilized, stay the same or get worse. Three get worse results and you are dead - gives variability so the party has some urgency to stabilize down characters. Once stabilized there is a simple fortitude roll per round to regain consciousness - and could take partial actions. Magical curing brings back to 0 HPs then adds the cure amount. Some combination of gamism & a little cinema; though not as much as yours. The primary fix was to avoid near guaranteed death when you are at 1 HP and the monster you are facing is averaging more than 10 points of damage per hit.

This should be less of a problem for Jester if his monsters scale on par with the character HP progression.

 

[baradtgnome]

I wonder if any of that is systemic, though? The last 20+ years have increasingly made the style of game I am talking about running harder and harder to pull off. But the ten years before that it wasn't so bad (at least, IME).

As a point of reference we were still playing heavily house ruled 1E when I started to change my mind. Never played 2E or 4E (apparently we only play odd editions). I readily concede that 3/3.5E makes level gaps worse mechanically. My current view was cemented by our 3/3.5E play. Though as I noted, only part of it is the mechanical problem the rest is the social/group dynamics of the gap.

 

[the Jester]

Can a blood magus draw blood from a helpless or dying creature in the same square?

I hadn't even considered this. Blood magus gives pretty damn good bonuses for this system, so that's why it takes hurting yourself to get the bonuses. That said, I might introduce some kind of thing for what you're describing- it makes an awful lot of sense.

How does even begin to test for game balance?

I'm going to generate a 1st level pc and then advance him into about 4-6 different builds and see how they look. Is each one attractive and interesting? Effective in its field? Etc.