Legends and Lore: Modular Madness

[Frostmarrow]

D&D is class based. There is no need for skills and feats. I think they should add role to the basic building blocks of race and class. A character could be a combination of the three.

Race, Role, Class. For example Elven Explorer Fighter, Dwarven Healer Cleric or Human Sage Wizard. The role dictates what you can do above and beyond of regular adventuring (ability score checks). These roles are already part of the game. It's finding a role that we try to do when we assign skill points and feats. Why not bundle them? You can even open up for dual roles and create the much sought after Half-Elven Explorer/Healer Fighter, Magic-User, Thief.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

D&D is class based. There is no need for skills and feats. I think they should add role to the basic building blocks of race and class. A character could be a combination of the three.

Race, Role, Class. For example Elven Explorer Fighter, Dwarven Healer Cleric or Human Sage Wizard. The role dictates what you can do above and beyond of regular adventuring (ability score checks). These roles are already part of the game. It's finding a role that we try to do when we assign skill points and feats. Why not bundle them? You can even open up for dual roles and create the much sought after Half-Elven Explorer/Healer Fighter, Magic-User, Thief.

The question is what are the common mechanics based on role? You're roles are a bit different from what 4e has outlined too. I'm not 100% sure where they fall in the 4e taxonomy. Somewhere between theme and build/subclass I would think. There's also always the question of 'hey, I would really like to be able to do X' but if you have only 3 choices you may well not be able to combine X and Y in the same character. That was the motivation for feats in 4e essentially. They are class features that are abstracted away from specific class/race/whatever choices (though they can be narrowed with prereqs). Skills could be packaged into your class (and to some extent are already), but then again the question is why can't my fighter learn to pick a lock or sneak? This was the whole issue with the totally class-based AD&D design, if you wanted to be able to climb or sneak around AT ALL you had no choice except thief (or assassin in 1e).

 

[Frostmarrow]

The question is what are the common mechanics based on role? You're roles are a bit different from what 4e has outlined too. I'm not 100% sure where they fall in the 4e taxonomy. Somewhere between theme and build/subclass I would think. There's also always the question of 'hey, I would really like to be able to do X' but if you have only 3 choices you may well not be able to combine X and Y in the same character. That was the motivation for feats in 4e essentially. They are class features that are abstracted away from specific class/race/whatever choices (though they can be narrowed with prereqs). Skills could be packaged into your class (and to some extent are already), but then again the question is why can't my fighter learn to pick a lock or sneak? This was the whole issue with the totally class-based AD&D design, if you wanted to be able to climb or sneak around AT ALL you had no choice except thief (or assassin in 1e).

Skills and feats are redundant now that we have Powers. If there is an outcry for skills and feats add them on in a supplement.

Role:
Adventurer (default) - Gain bonus to saves
or pick
Athlete - Gain Movement Utility Powers
Explorer - Gain Awareness UPs
Healer - Gain Healing UPs
Artificier - Gain Lockpicking/Trap Disabling UPs
Sage - Gain Knowledge UPs
Mystic - Gain Ritual UPs
Diplomat - Gain Interaction UPs
Shadow - Gain Stealth UPS

Tie UPs to level so a DM knows what a character is capable of based on level as we already do with spells, i.e. no Fly before Paragon. -Climb Wall can be a third level Athlete Utility Power.

Classes becomes combat role (combat role terminology is phased out):

Ranger: Ranged Striker
Rogue: Melee Striker
Fighter: Melee Defender
Wizard: Ranged Controller
Cleric: Melee Controller

Leader can be a Role. A paladin could be spelled Human Leader Cleric. No game is complete unless you map out the Ninja; Human Shadow Rogue.

Actually, your proposed character is a Multi-Role Human Artificier-Shadow Fighter.

 

[Sammael]

So, 1st level characters cannot climb walls? And 3rd level+ characters can only climb walls 1/day?

Sorry, not gonna work.

 

[Frostmarrow]

So, 1st level characters cannot climb walls? And 3rd level+ characters can only climb walls 1/day?

Sorry, not gonna work.

Short answer: Not unless you get a ladder. Oh this is the stuff role-plying games are made of.

Long answer: We can have a baseline economy where 1GP is equal to 1 hour's worth of effort or even 1 HP. With your resources you can haggle with the GM for feats outside the realm of utility powers.

On a related note: Let's imagine a 1st level character is entitled to 3 UPs. You can then pick the Artificier role and get all three Artificier UPs or go about it the other way and pick any 3 UPs from any role. Simple or complex.

Artificier 1st level
Open bolted door
Disable hunting trap
Craft tool (worth 1GP)

Shadow 1st level
Move in shadows
Hide out of sight
Feint

I'm just spitballing here.

 

[Sammael]

Not the kind of games I would like to participate in.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Thank you for the opportunity to pitch.

 

[FireLance]

Actually, I think skills and feats could occupy the same design space as utility powers.

Conceptually, you could start with the basic system suggested in one of the articles that everything boils down to an ability check. Class could add a bonus to certain types of checks which the class is supposed to be good at - you could even retain the current skill name nomeclature, so a Rogue could get a +2 bonus to Dexterity checks involving Acrobatics, Stealth and Thievery, for example. Then, when he selects a utility "power" he can either select an actual utility power, or a constant bonus: perhaps "Educated" which grants a +2 bonus to Intelligence checks involving Arcana, History and Religion.

Ideally, this would involve even stricter siloing than currently - utility powers would have almost entirely non-combat uses, and combat-enhancing feats and utility powers could be selected in place of attack powers.

 

[triqui]

I would like that Heroic, Paragon and Epic would not be tied to level, but to a Layer.

I mean: Heroic, Paragon and Epic is not only a reflection of your current level, but also has an impact on the "feeling" of the game. Epic characters do impossible tasks (such as "cloud leap", jump twice in a row, "leaping" in the air). That's nice... sometimes. It's Wuxia, and I have nothing against it, but sometimes you don't really like that in your campaign. Even if it's a high level one. On the other hand, sometimes you want effects like that *even at low level*. For example, if I'm doing a "Conan-like" campaign, I don't want my rogues "flying for a turn", even if we go high level and end playing "Conan-King" after several years of gaming. OTOH, if I'm playing a "Diablo 2" campaing, I want my Archers to be able to shoot multiple arrows (And I mean like 20) in one shot, right from level 4 or 5.

That would be really cool.

 

[chaochou]

I really have no idea what MM is talking about. I thought I understood where he was going a week or so back, but after this latest article I'm just a bit confused.

If he's looking at scaling levels of complexity then I think he needs to be starting out looking very hard and very closely at something central and vital to any system - the resolution mechanic.

D&D has, imo, a task resolution system. Say what you try to do, roll a dice, see if you do it. The alternative is a conflict resolution system. Say what you want to achieve, roll a dice, see if you get it.

The thing with these is that they can often appear the same. The difference between 'I try and pick the lock' (task) and 'I want to open the safe' (conflict) is slight. What's happening there is that you are focusing your conflict resolution very tightly to emulate task resolution.

But conflict resolution mechanics can also scale outwards in a way that task resolution does not, because you get to set the stakes for what a roll means in the fiction. You can roll your Tactics skill to outflank a troll or conquer a country depending on your goals at the time.

This kind of scaling approach is what I originally thought MM was talking about, and it's something I'd be interesting in seeing. That is - if you want to keep it simple then use broad brush strokes with your rolls (conflict resolution). If you want complexity then add it by narrowing the focus of your resolution system (task).

So, for example. Group A might use task resolution for the round by round details of combat but just want a quick D20 roll for social. Group B might want the reverse - lots of detail in the politics but a quick d20 to resolve a fight. Group C might want both in detail. Group D might want neither in detail. All four options would give the game a very different feel.

Not sure this is where MM is going though.