More than 3.75

[Doug McCrae]

So unless he specifically builds for AC, the kingdom's champion is no better at parrying an attack than Bob Yokel?

That's a fair point. Adding a static BAB-based component to AC would be quite reasonable though require a bit of rejigging. It shouldn't be an active parry as in RuneQuest 2 or WoD as that slows things down.

 

[Zaruthustran]

That's part of what hit points model. The 10th level fighter can't take 10x as much physical punishment -- part of his hit points are luck, skill, etc that help him avoid being killed. Damage is abstract; 7 points will be mortal wound to the commoner, but to the 10th level fighter it's just a near miss he barely dodged, or maybe a bruise.

I've heard that said, but that's not really what HPs model. Consider attacks that key off of contact. If you're swatted by a rust monster, your metal armor is gone--regardless of how many hit points you have. All that matters is whether or not you were hit/whether or not your AC was beaten.

Totally agree with Doug that AC shouldn't be an active, opposed roll. Too slow. But I do like Star Wars Saga way of incrementing AC with level. Kind of like an anti-BAB. Yes higher level people should be able to take more punishment (they're tougher, in both body and mind), but they should also be harder to *hit*.

Again, the way it works now is just fine for 3.5E. We're exploring ideas for this mythical next iteration of the game.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I totally get the whole 3 role thing. After all, I've been True20ing it for a while, lately.

But we'll go with Adept, Rogue and Warrior. OK. Make them 1 good save, 1 medium and 1 poor. Adept: good Will, choose the other two. Rogue: good Reflex, same again. Warrior: good Fortitude, same again. Simple. Adept: poor BAB; Rogue: medium BAB; Warrior: good BAB. Multiclass freely. No +2 or +1 'bump' for saves when multiclassing. Arrange skills, feats and traits appropriately. And done.


edit --- oh yeah, and those HP things (not using them currently, so forgot). Make them scale upward, from Adept to Warrior, of course. What - d4, d6, d8? d6, d8, d10? d4, d8, d12? Ah, whatever. To summarise my previous quick thoughts: d20 Modern in Fantasy clothing, with half the classes.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I've heard that said, but that's not really what HPs model.

Yes, it is, and it has been that way since the very, very beginning of D&D.

Consider attacks that key off of contact. If you're swatted by a rust monster, your metal armor is gone--regardless of how many hit points you have. All that matters is whether or not you were hit/whether or not your AC was beaten.

Or, in other words, in D&D, an attack that beats your AC actually hits you just enough for any mechanical effects to happen.

Struck by a poisonous attack? Then you get at least scratched by the attack.

A rust monster hits you? Then it's tentacle managed to brush your shield.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Yes, it is, and it has been that way since the very, very beginning of D&D.

I think we're in agreement; it's not important anyway.

Let's not talk about what hit points represent in 3.5. Let's talk about how damage should be modeled in whatever edition comes after 3.5.

 

[Aus_Snow]

The "what is HP" thing never gets very far. . . or goes very well. Trust me.

Besides, I can't see them leaving D&D anytime soon ever. Mind you, same goes for certain classes. *sigh*

Oh well. Guess I'm not in charge of designing 4e any more? Fine.

 

[Razz]

Way too many classes, there.

Bah, I like my Spellthief and Ninjas! Don't tell me to make a "Rogue" and call it a Ninja or make a singing Wizard and call it a Bard!

 

[TheCrazyMuffinMan]

Bah, I like my Spellthief and Ninjas! Don't tell me to make a "Rogue" and call it a Ninja or make a singing Wizard and call it a Bard!

Custom classes are workable, and it would be good to have four base classes for a person to add onto for a specific purpose, if class efficiency is essential to your design.

Ex: You have Fighter, Rogue, Cleric (he does have unique capabilities) and Wizard as class bases, and four "foci" to add to your character. You could focus completely on one, or spread the foci around. The more foci on a specific class base, the more initial goodies you start off with toward that specific base:

I have two ideas:

1) Focus combos

2 Fighter + 1 Rogue + 1 Cleric = Ranger
2 Fighter + 2 Cleric = Paladin
2 Fighter + 1 Wizard + 1 Cleric = Monk
3 Fighter + 1 Rogue = Barbarian
2 Cleric + 2 Wizard = Druid
3 Rogue + 1 Wizard = Bard
3 Wizard + 1 Rogue = Sorcerer

(for one example, other combos can spawn other classes or some of the same classes, or foci can be applied using method 2.)


2) From the Ground Up

Ex: Without foci, you have a d4 hit die, no weapon proficiencies, no armor proficiencies, no good saves, no AC progression, and 1/2 base attack bonus.

Hit Dice have 4 progressions (4->6, 8, 10, 12
Weapon proficiencies have 2 progressions (Simple, Martial)
Armor proficiencies have 3 progressions (Light, Medium, Heavy)
Shields have 2 progressions (Normal,Tower)
Saves have 1 progression (6->12)
BABs have 3 progressions: (1/2->3/4, full)
Spell limits have 3 progressions (4th, 6th, 9th)
Skill growth has 3 progressions (2->4, 6, 8)

Fighter

1: HD+, Weapon+, Armor+, BAB+, Fighter Class skills
2: HD+, Weapon+, Armor+, Shield+
3: HD+, Armor+, BAB+, Fort+
4: HD+, Shield+, Bonus Feats

Rogue

1: Ref+, Skill+, Weapon+, Rogue Class skills
2: HD+,Skill+, Armor+, Rogue-specific weapons
3: Trapfinding, Skill+, BAB+
4: Rogue bonus goodies,Sneak attack


Cleric

1: Light Armor, Level 4 divine spell cap, half caster level, Turn undead partial, Cleric class skills
2: Simple Weapons, HD+, Medium Armor, Level 6 divine spell cap, Will+
3: HD+, Turn undead full, BAB+, full caster level
4: Heavy Armor, Shield+, Level 9 divine spell cap, Fort+

Wizard:

1: Level 4 arcane spell cap, Partial caster level, Wizard class skills
2: Level 6 arcane spell cap, Will+, Wizard-specific weapons
3: Full Caster level, Familiar
4: Wizard bonus feats,Level 9 arcane spell cap, Scribe Scroll

I wonder what you think, Zara? 4 Class seeds, and the players build the class using foci, using either method.

Unique class features of non-seed classes will be available via other methods.

 

[Imaro]

I think SWSE tackles the "too many base classes" in a very elegant way, with talents. Basically why not have different talent trees that represent different class and variant class abiltities. So for the fighter, you might have the pugilist(monk like), tracker(ranger like), berserker(barbarian like), and crusader(paladin like) trees. With each one allowing you to customize your character with abilities that meld with that particular concept? You wouldn't be restricted to only one tree but different abilities would have pre-requisites.

Thus you could grab the tracking talent from the tracker tree, and still devote the rest of your talents to the Berserker tree...voila a "barbarian" who can track, without screwing with the rest of his abilities.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Both cool ideas for character classes. I admit I haven't read the Saga rules, beyond the preview postings on the WotC site.

The foci thing is very intriguing. I'd call em different names, by role rather than title. So "Combat" instead of "Fighter", "Magic" instead of "Wizard" or "Cleric", and so on.

And hm, good point about divine supernatural ability being different from wizardry. Maybe instead of a single generic caster class, you could have wizardry skills/talent trees and divine skills/talent trees. They'd use similar d20 mechanics but be different effects.

I'm thinking of the Wu Jen taboos, from original Oriental Adventures. IMHO those who channel a god's power need to have some sort of code, and follow it. I always thought it weird that 3E had no suggestions for dogma, commandments, and the like for clerics. Only for Paladins and Druids.