[Engines & Empires] New Update

[Jack Daniel]

Some comments of mine:

1) I like the idea of Clerics being practioners of "white magic". However, names for practioners of "black magic" would sound better as Sorcerer (or Wizard) and Witch than Mage and Psychic.

2) BAB: if OD&Dish, I am in favor of only one attack per round at any level. Only Fighters should get additional attacks, one every two rounds at 7th level, and two per round at 13th level, no more, but otherwise weapon specialization (only available to them) brings an additional attack once every two rounds. Note that doing this will let you use monsters from AD&D 1e and C&C, which otherwise would be largely underpowered.

3) Spellcasting: this is unclear. Do I must understand that spellcasters cast the same way a d20 sorcerer casts? (even if they could know more spells).


Overall, this looks interesting, but there is too much text for me to read at length. As such, I can't discern if the classes are balanced or not.

1) ::grin:: To each his own. In a strictly high-fantasy setting, sorcerer/wizard and witch probably would be more appropriate -- but I am, after all, placing these rules within the context of a setting, one that is more Victorian or pulp than anything else. Gotta have a psychic/swami type, even if I don't want to use separate rules for psionics.

2) I guess, in this regard, I'm just too used to the 3e/d20 convention of all characters having lots of attacks. In any case, it'll be a lot easier for me to use d20 monsters (with a little conversion work), since they're in the SRD. But I do plan on using some of C&C's innovations (like using monster HD as the modifier for all attacks, skills, and saves) to simplify things.

3) Yeah, it's a read all right... the best I can describe it is, all the spell-caster characters in this game cast like a combination of 3e wizards, and spirit shamans from "complete divine" -- they all have spell-books that have to be filled with spells (nobody gets whole levels of spells for free like D&D divine casters), and the spells they cast have to be memorized/prepared from the list of known spells in their spell-books. Once spells are prepared, though, it works just like sorcerer casting. All I've done is re-name "spontaneous spell-casting spell slot" to "mana point". It's a little more succinct that way.

 

[Jack Daniel]

How do you get it to work with OD&D progressions and 3e style multiclassing? How would the saves stack for example. I suppose you could use the C&C style of saving throw and combine the levels to determine saving throw bonuses but how do you handle the disparative requirements for experience points and level bumps?

Jason

I am doing precisely that for saving throws -- I've taken the C&C mechanic and made it a little more d20-ish (everything is based on a roll vs. TN 15 + a challenge level, rather than C&C's base 12/base 18 + challenge level). But as for character progressions, by "progression", I didn't mean experience charts. I'm using the d20/3e experience chart. What I meant was, overall level advancement is based on a 36-level scale, like it is in OD&D, rather than the 20-level scale that became standard in AD&D 2e. Spell-casters don't get 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells until 15th, 18th, and 21st class levels, for example, like it was in OD&D.

 

[Jack Daniel]

2) BAB: if OD&Dish, I am in favor of only one attack per round at any level. Only Fighters should get additional attacks, one every two rounds at 7th level, and two per round at 13th level, no more, but otherwise weapon specialization (only available to them) brings an additional attack once every two rounds. Note that doing this will let you use monsters from AD&D 1e and C&C, which otherwise would be largely underpowered.

Grr... this one got me thinking. (Yes, my old arch-nemisis... Thinking... we meet again to do battle...)

Once I started to agree with what you were saying here (sort of), I realized that cutting way back on the number of multiple attacks that characters can make would be a great excuse for a whole chain-reaction of rules simplifications (most of which is actually just removing rules complications that I introduced myself as ill-conceived patches). See if you can follow my logic on this.

1) Fewer attacks at higher levels means that warriors are somewhat less deadly in comparison to other warriors. (I've already nerfed spell-casters by delaying their acquisition of high-level spells to OD&D levels, and whether I use AD&D/C&C or 3e/d20 style monsters will depend on what happens as playtesting marches ever onward.) This means that combat is less deadly than I would like it to be (as evinced by the fact that I was using d20 Modern style massive damage).

2) If I cap player character hit dice at 9 HD, like it was in OD&D, high-level characters can take fewer hits (only a few, but still, it's there). Combat is a little more deadly again.

3) At high levels, it's so deadly that a low massive damage threshold is a bad idea. So I can nix that rule. As much as I love it, I'm trying to strip out pointless complications here.

4) No MDT means no need to have damage-reducing armor. Another pointless complication... gone.

5) No damage-reducing armor means I don't have to compensate as much for high level PCs' ACs with an AC bonus... but since I still really want to, I'm going to make the bonus smaller and leave it at that.

This chain of tweaks, plus a few others (like rolling ability scores on 3d6 again), and all the rest of the character classes have been added to the file at the link above. The more I brainstorm (and the more old D&D I mash into these rules), the more I really, really start to like what I've got here, homely and patched together though it may be...

 

[Raven Crowking]

First glance-through skim seems okay, but I need to see the combat and magic system. I like the idea of a Scientist class, but need to see what you intend to do with inventions a bit more.

RC

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

The more I brainstorm (and the more old D&D I mash into these rules), the more I really, really start to like what I've got here, homely and patched together though it may be...

Only coming to this thread now. I tried going through a process exactly like you are doing now. I hate 1st edition probably as much as you, and Rules Cyclopedia informed me as well. Good luck with your progress.

 

[3d6]

It looks interesting. I like how you did the 3rd edition XP chart--I think that's a simpler way of doing it (you don't need notations everywhere that you can't spend enough XP to lose a level, for example).

One concern is that you seem to be in violation of the OGL; the shaman is using material from PHB2, which is not open content, as far as I know.

 

[Jack Daniel]

First glance-through skim seems okay, but I need to see the combat and magic system. I like the idea of a Scientist class, but need to see what you intend to do with inventions a bit more.

RC

I'm going for a Pulp Heroes / d20 Past kind of a thing, but I'm using (3.0) psionic powers, rather than "mage and acolyte spells", as the list of effects that inventions will mimic. Quite simple, really.

Only coming to this thread now. I tried going through a process exactly like you are doing now. I hate 1st edition probably as much as you, and Rules Cyclopedia informed me as well. Good luck with your progress.

Groovy & thanks. I do have to say, the day I walked into the used bookstore and found a copy of the Rules Cyclopedia lying buried underneath a mound of 3rd-party d20 paperbacks... I was jumpin' with joy all the way down the street that day.

It looks interesting. I like how you did the 3rd edition XP chart--I think that's a simpler way of doing it (you don't need notations everywhere that you can't spend enough XP to lose a level, for example).

One concern is that you seem to be in violation of the OGL; the shaman is using material from PHB2, which is not open content, as far as I know.

Jeez, I was afraid of that. Now I'm going to have to go rummaging around, dig up my 2e PHB, and see how druidic shapeshifting used to work before it became the 3e mess that is Wild Shape. What a drag.

 

[3d6]

In 2E, a shapechanged druid "takes on all of [the] creature's characteristics--its movement rate and abilities, its Armor Class, number of attacks, and damage per attack". Its pretty simple.

 

[Phantos]

interesting.

 

[arscott]

What about using this instead. It's much the same thing, but it's open content.