Leveless d20 . . .

[Jim Hague]

Have you considered using a wounds/vitality system? And as a point of order, DR only comes into play once you're hit. Armor as DR's been done in Conan and M&M, and both games use it quite well.

 

[CarlZog]

To resolve many of the issues, I suggest checking out Alternity. This was TSR's generic, any-setting game system for sci-fi before d20. The company abandoned Alternity in lieu of d20, but the designers were the same and many of the d20 concepts come from Alternity, so you'll find it familiar turf and easily adaptable.

Alternity mechanics uses a multiple-type damage system that reflects fatigue and stun damage as well as serious injuries. These hit points are tied directly to Constitution and don't ramp up as they do in d20.

It does not use d20's myriad of wargame-style tactical rules, but the system has a modular approach that allows you to easily add or subtract whatever you want.

There are loosely defined classes and levels, but most advancement comes through spending experience points to buy new skills or buy new ranks in existing skills. The whole mechanic, including using weapons in combat, is based on skill checks.

Though initially designed for science fiction, Alternity has developed a growing number of fantasy players, many of whom have switched from d20.

Check out www.alternity.net for more.

 

[DarkMaster]

I also have a significant issue with the concept of refex save vs dodge AC bonus. Hit points are a form of dodge, Dex to ac and ref save is, damage reduction is another, etc. I think all matters of "dodging" things should follow a single mechanic that could be all regrouped in a defense bonus-like system rather than a mix of reflex saves, abstract hit point system and dex/dodge bonuses.

Another thing I dislike about D&D is the real-world time it takes to go through an encounter. So my goal is to add a level of conplexity to reach a bit more realism. Once you've hit, you've hit end of story. It would give a more cinetatic feel to combat.

At the same time, I wish to get a system that would be balanced on all levels. So any level of magic would not hinder balance (in other words, for example balance the wizard to the fighter with each of them not having any magic items and create balanced items for each class).

It's still not very clear how it will turn out and if it is at all possible, but it doesn't cost anything to try (except maybe time )

I agree that AC, HP and Reflex save and DR are quite mixed up. My problem is mostly with DR. I really cannot find a good explanation for it within the existing abstract system.

I see AC as the DC required in order for your opponent to put you in a dangerous situation requiring an "unusual" effort that will affect lower in some way your ability to continue to dodge your opponents blow. Like I explained before it can be accumulation of minor wounds, action that forces the figther to move quicker and much more than required. All this resulting in loss of energy and concentration. Higher Dex character being physically more agile will have a tendency to dodge blow more easily than a non agile fighter, full plated warrior will let the armor absorb most of the blow, but some blow will still hurt(non lethal), brake some ribs, or be close call that will effect his concentration.

I see reflex save as the AC for magic. A rogue with evasion will see the dragon breath coming and will easily roll out of the way, the rogue practice these manoeuvre every day so nothing unusual here no loss of HP. But the fighter with a lot of HP that fail his save maybe not even touched by the dragon's fire but in order to dodge the flame he had to jump out of the way, probably bruising himself, because he doesn't have the proper technique it isn't something he trained for exhaustively so it required much more from him.

But DR is hard to explain. AC and DR in my mind are two concepts that shouldn't be mixed together.

I see DR used in a more complex system where a hit is a hit. each fighter would have a certain attack and defense ability and each would be allow a certain number of each action a certain number of time. Ie a high level fighter could have 3 attack action and 5 defense action per turn the low level figther with 1 attack and 2 defense for example could only try to block 2 of the 3 attack the other would be an automatic hit or very easy to perform. Then damage would be rolled and if it goes through the armor DR the low level fighter is injured . I would also use a VP system based on the constitution. So if the very high level fighter is hit by a crossbow bolt he can die from it.

Obviously such a system would make defense action more powerfull than attack action. so that when two high level fighter fight in duel the results are more cinematic, lots of attack and parade.

I don't know just a suggestion

 

[Bastoche]

WP/VP system is kinda of a joke to me. It's only an explicit interpretation of the rule. Basically it has the same problem as the standard hit points i.e. wp = dodging + heavy level dependence. Furthermore, the amount of WP a target lose depends on the damage rolled that are in fact avoided. Makes no sense whatsoever. 3E removed called shots claiming that each attack was a called shot to a deadly area. Why the heck does when you [technically] hit you do not kill? What I have in mind is more of a system where you roll to hit, if you hit, the difference between AC and the result determine the damage. So a dagger would confer a certain to hit bonus different from a longsword related to the respective damage of each weapon (probably the average damage rounded up or down +3 for dagger, +5 for long sword, etc). Basically, what I'm aiming at is a system where the average # of rounds required to slay a foe is more or less the same as in standard D&D (depending on the level of grittiness), but using a single roll that takes into account average hit points per level, average damage per attack and probability to hit, etc.

AC as damage reduction is very unrealistic. You never pierce through an armor, you pierce around it. Damage reduction is a special ability that allow you to "soak" damage. An armor does not soak damage, it absorbs/deflect them. From my point of view, AC bonus is more realistic than damage reduction. YMMV though.

Good suggestion about alternity. I have the books, i'll check it out. What I remember of that system is that it had a complicated system using many various dice to determine success. Maybe there's a way to just replace the mechanic with a simple d20 roll.

Darkmaster: I had a very similar idea in mind. Add to that some sort of mechanic for fatigue (and recovery/break to gather some forces up to resume). Also, IRL, you NEVER lay in place when facing multiple opponents. The only realistic way to get through them all is by moving around a lot and hoping for the best. AoO is also out of the equation. This could be handled by a skill. There would be so many fighting skills to be the "best" in a fight that it would balance out with spellcasting abilities and or other skills. And it would add options. A bit like the various feats. You couldn't spread all over the "standard" class abilies while avoiding to suck in all of them.

My only problem to date is sneak attack that would be handled differently... I still have to think about it.

 

[solomoncane]

What I have in mind is more of a system where you roll to hit, if you hit, the difference between AC and the result determine the damage. So a dagger would confer a certain to hit bonus different from a longsword related to the respective damage of each weapon (probably the average damage rounded up or down +3 for dagger, +5 for long sword, etc). Basically, what I'm aiming at is a system where the average # of rounds required to slay a foe is more or less the same as in standard D&D (depending on the level of grittiness), but using a single roll that takes into account average hit points per level, average damage per attack and probability to hit, etc.

AC as damage reduction is very unrealistic. You never pierce through an armor, you pierce around it. Damage reduction is a special ability that allow you to "soak" damage. An armor does not soak damage, it absorbs/deflect them. From my point of view, AC bonus is more realistic than damage reduction. YMMV though.

My only problem to date is sneak attack that would be handled differently... I still have to think about it.

A lot of what you are describing can be found in Ken Hood's most recent Grim-n-Gritty Combat Revised and Simplified (see downloads section). He even uses some of the same terminology. The only issue I see from this discussion's point of view is that High Magic used with this system is overpoweringly deadly.

 

[Jim Hague]

Let me emphasize this - Damage Reduction is not part of Armor Class. It represents the ability to, gasp, resist damage done to you, be that as deflecting a blow that's landed a little bit, stopping the damage entirely, etc. Nothing to do with getting hit or not getting hit.

While I agree that the AC/HP abstraction can be maddening, it's really sounding like you're not wanting to play d20 at all. Alternity was offered up as a suggestion. I'd also check out Riddle of Steel for something more in line with what you seem to be looking for.

 

[Bastoche]

Riddle of steel is EXACTLY what I'm after. But like I said in an earlier post, I'm alone in this boat. My fellow players are hardcore d20 players. I want to build something halfway in between. TRoS philosophy with a d20-based mechanic.

It may be easier to convince everyone to play TRoS then build the system i'm after

 

[RFisher]

Why not find a system you like, rather than tinker with one that's giving you problems.

Because I find tinkering fun.

BTW, I don't necessarily tinker because a system is giving me problems. I may be perfectly happy with the system. Tinkering with it is still fun.

Find a system I like? I have. I've found lots of them. You know what? I don't think I've discovered one yet that I don't have fun tinkering with. The word "rather" is not approprate for me in this context.

Generally, I'll try to pick a system suitable for the campaign rather than trying to shoehorn a campaign into a unsuitable system. That has nothing to do, however, with the fact that I find tinkering fun.

 

[CarlZog]

Good suggestion about alternity. I have the books, i'll check it out. What I remember of that system is that it had a complicated system using many various dice to determine success. Maybe there's a way to just replace the mechanic with a simple d20 roll.

It not complicated. Just different. The d20 system requires a single die roll, but the result is endlessly modified, and compared against a score that can also be modified.

Instead, Alternity has you throw a d20 and one other die (a d4,d6,d8,d12, or another d20). Bonuses and penalties determine which extra die you roll, and whether the result of the second die is added or subtracted to the d20. You then compare the result against a skill score. That's all.

But like I said in an earlier post, I'm alone in this boat. My fellow players are hardcore d20 players. I want to build something halfway in between.

Again, Alternity's close kinship to d20 should make switching over pretty easy.

zog

 

[Welverin]

Considering how divorced M&M is from levels in many ways, I suppose you could call it levelless D20. Sure, there are caps based on PL, but level gaining is not a huge part of the game, but I'd say those are only really to gauge challenges (which IMHO is a good thing).

I consider M&M a level less, point based game, with PL just being an arbitrary means of balance. Note how PL is based on the number of PP you’ve earned and not the other way around (the key distinction in my mind).