Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Grail Quest" data-source="post: 1901408" data-attributes="member: 21364">The major changes would be:* classless developmentDevelopment on this was mostly because classes are a middle-man step that just makes things complicated in the long term; it results in what we have now and what we had in 2nd ed -- an unending amount of kits / classes / PrCs which essentially give different takes and mixes of characters. Why not just go classless, especially when there's a lot of bookkeeping to be saved.Also, by lifting the need for classes, we make development more "realistic", IMO. No one is strictly any one thing. They are where their interests and experiences have taken them. This is mirrored better by allowing a more or less free selection of feats than taking a sequence of classes.Also, by allowing heroes to have different "calibers", I feel I am addressing something which is long neglected by D&D simply because it cannot address that with fixed class writeups. The best D&D can do is let high-powered characters in an epic setting start at a higher level, but this has problems of its own, especially when their epic character rules cause so much more paperwork and inconsistency (e.g., A Fighter 20/Wizard 20 is not the same as a Wizard 20/Fighter 20. Why? And not only that, the exact order in which classes are taken suddenly become important. Urgh... Try not to make any mistakes as you level up. I'd personally hate to roll back 5 character levels just because I missed something in updating a character.)* Size chartBecause the size chart as it stands now has steps that are too large, and some of the stats are simply wrong, IMO. The hit roll penalty, for example, is incorrect at 1,2,4,8, although it is "necessary" as a feeble attempt to balance the incorrect use of the full Strength modifier for melee hit roll adjustment (itself a flawed assumption of how Strength works--sure you swing faster, but you also have a bigger weapon, no? Mass needs to be accounted for!).Introducing Mass, we can also look at Strength-based skills (see the brief discussion in "D10 Skills") in a more correct way, and no longer use the hack of swapping Str with Dex for small creatures climbing (a strictly subjective and arbitrary rule -- just how small is small and doesn't relative size count?)* Size DRPrimarily to reduce the use of levels to represent size. Why does a giant have essentially 12+ levels of experience (levels of "giant") just because he's big? But there are a host of interesting applications as well.* Dice streamlining (e.g., using only d10s)Not only to tweak the tone of the campaign (e.g., 2d10 = more luck than 3d6, but less than 1d20 for hit rolls and skill checks), but it has other benefits as well. For example, what you use for a hit die is no longer arbitrarily limited by what kind of dice are available (have you ever seen 1d7 or 1d14 for hit dice?). Instead, make a reason for how much you get in Vitality/HP per level, and have a scale that can accomodate it.Also, by folding Con bonuses into hit dice and Strength bonuses into damage, we avoid situations like rolling 1d2+10 damage. This says that stats *always* have an absolute effect, and I do not agree with this when the rest of the system says that effects can fall into a range of results representing a minimum and maximum.If there is a question about a specific change, feel free to post it here.***The modularity of changes is for you to decide, but certainly some changes are far-reaching. The Size Chart, for example, contains a number of concepts that are not all that easy to implement without re-writing monsters.If you have a particular query about how to lift something and insert it into your game, feel free to post it here or e-mail me.Thank you for your interest in D10!</blockquote>

Verification