Must-have advancement options for a playtest?

[the Jester]

I've been working on a version of D&D that tries to capture what I like best about each version of D&D through the years. I'm almost at the point where I'm going to give a playtest document to a couple of dms in the hopes of having them do a little playtesting for me, but I have a couple things still to do.

One of those things involves character options. There are only four basic classes- cleric, fighter, rogue and wizard- and advancement works kind of 3e-style, by tacking levels of different classes together to build your character. Each base class only has 10 levels, each race has 3 paragon levels, and I'm intending to have a bunch of prestige classes, each with 3 levels, that you can use to add flavor and build the type of character you want.

So for instance, if you want to make a bard in the model of the 3.5 version, you might start with one level each of rogue, fighter and wizard, then take up to three bard levels for musical abilities, then some loremaster levels, etc. I plan to have prestige classes that focus on different weapon types, schools of magic, etc.

That said, if you were a dm playtesting something like this, what options would you want the players to have? I'm trying to avoid option overload in part by using prestige classes as packages of options.

So far I have:

Abjurer
Assassin
Bard
Berserker
Enchanter
Evoker
Paladin
Ranger

 

[Nadaka]

Your first play test should be minimalist.

A set of single class characters at min, mid and max level.

Perhaps another group of characters with 2 classes each.

The point of your first playtest should be to show that the core of your system isn't broken and that the rules can be understood by players and other GM's.

 

[the Jester]

Your first play test should be minimalist.

A set of single class characters at min, mid and max level.

Perhaps another group of characters with 2 classes each.

The point of your first playtest should be to show that the core of your system isn't broken and that the rules can be understood by players and other GM's.

This is actually version 0.23, if you will- earlier iterations have seen a fair amount of playtesting already.

One of the key features I want to test is the ability of mixed-level parties to adventure together without the low level guys feeling useless or the high level guys feeling like they aren't any better than the low-level ones.

 

[LostSoul]

Warlocks - I want to make a deal with some shadowy figure for power.

 

[howandwhy99]

One of the key features I want to test is the ability of mixed-level parties to adventure together without the low level guys feeling useless or the high level guys feeling like they aren't any better than the low-level ones.

I think multi-level group adventuring needs to be designed into your system, if you plan on offering it. I've talked before about balancing by scope and not by class level. That is quite tricky, but defines a different game for each player based upon the class they play. Others ways will work still even if you do balance all classes to have the same power at the same level.

Think of it quantitatively. If one player has a 100pt PC (class no longer being relevant), another has a 200pt PC, and a third a 900pt PC, then some mechanism is needed to enable the players as a team to re-balance themselves. This power sharing means enabling the players to purposely choose to lower a powerful PC or raise a weak one.

In a fantasy game I think every power can be traded. For example, movement could even be magically traded from one PC to another, if they party finds a means to do so. But I suggest a Class / Gear dichotomy, if you are going off a d20 model.

So, to continue the example, we have a 50pt 1st Class PC w/ 50 pts of Gear, a 100pt 2nd Class w/ 100 pts Gear, and a 450pt 9th Class w/ 450 pts Gear. This is where the playtest begins.

If you have designed a cooperative game, then it is in the interests of the players to share power to better enable their own PC's success. Working together means a better chance of both individual and group success, a form of enlightened self interest. So maybe "it's a loan" or "a trade" for a weaker item, but the system makes power sharing a player choice.

In the end you may get a 100+200+900 = 1200pt party splitting themselves into roughly 300-500pts for 3 PCs to build challenges against. But I wouldn't require it. Rather let the players learn optimal strategies through play. The totals will constantly be in flux throughout game play anyways. Not to mention how division of treasure (Gear) will really start to matter.

By having static Class statistics you should be able have some simplicity for figuring out your DC rating progression vs. die rolls - at least for anything you want static to all classes, like combat traditionally. Also, average totals for party power rather than individual PC totals, even though you can track both, will provide for appropriate challenge creation. Generating monsters, treasure, environment, and whatnot could be quite simple.

Lastly, if you are going the multi-level PC party route, I would suggest starting all PCs at level 1, 0 XP. This rewards not only long term play with higher power levels, but also cautious play, and a means of introducing new PCs who do not have knowledge of the world the other players/characters will have gained from play.

 

[the Jester]

Thanks- good feedback there on the concept of multilevel pcs.

Part of my approach involves heavily flattening the math when it comes to hit points, attacks and defenses. A 1st level fighter with an 18 con is going to have 16 hp; a 10th level fighter with an 18 con is going to have, on average, 38. Likewise- assuming no bonuses other than simple melee attack advancement by class- the 1st level guy has a melee bonus of +1 and the 10th level fighter has a melee bonus of +4.

OTOH that 10th level fighter will probably have an extra +1 or +2 from their repertoire of fighting abilities, depending on the character's build.

 

[garrowolf]

Can I recommend checking out my Nexus d20 system. It solves some of these problems by making the danger level of combat the same across the board. My system is classless but you could create classes in it very easily by setting what feats a class gets at a certain level.

 

[the Jester]

Can I recommend checking out my Nexus d20 system. It solves some of these problems by making the danger level of combat the same across the board. My system is classless but you could create classes in it very easily by setting what feats a class gets at a certain level.

D'you have a link? I'll take a look at it, but this project of mine is one that I've been working at for quite some time and have done quite a bit of stuff for- and run playtests in multiple iterations.

 

[Kingreaper]

I know I'd get asked about Druid, if it's a D&D based game. So, that'd be a handy one to have. IMO that would equate to
1] Either expanding the cleric spell list (ie. level 1 in druid gives new spells for levels 1-4 in cleric, level 2 for levels 5-7, level 3 for levels 8-10) or granting new spellcasting; depending how your magic system works. But you've probably worked out that while doing Evoker etc.
2] some amount of shapeshifting.

If you wanted to split the two parts into different prestige classes, that would also work, as long as it was possible to get both nature-y spells, and some form of shapeshifting.

Also, Sorcerer and, if not makeable with just fighter/rogue, a monk class.

Oh, and I would personally like a Warlord/Marshal. But that's lower priority, because I expect I'd get less requests for that one.

 

[the Jester]

I know I'd get asked about Druid, if it's a D&D based game....

If you wanted to split the two parts into different prestige classes, that would also work, as long as it was possible to get both nature-y spells, and some form of shapeshifting.

Also, Sorcerer and, if not makeable with just fighter/rogue, a monk class.

Oh, and I would personally like a Warlord/Marshal. But that's lower priority, because I expect I'd get less requests for that one.

Yeah, the druid is actually the toughest thing I've come up against yet. I'm still working out how it will work. I am definitely going to have "shifter" as its own prestige class- that way anyone can become a shapechanger instead of just druids- but that's also a tough one.

Sorcerer- yeah, I was thinking about that one too... not quite sure how to fully differentiate it from a wizard at this point, but I'm mulling.

Monk- on my list, probably split into several different prestige classes with differing emphases so that you can be an unarmed fighter, a meditating dude with mastery of his own body, a quasi-mystic, etc.

Warlord- That one was easy, I did it last night!

For the record, here's what a prestige class looks like in this system:

Warlord
A warlord is a warrior who inspires and aids his allies. To become a warlord, you must have a Charisma of 11 and a base melee attack of +1.

WARLORD ADVANCEMENT
When you gain a warlord level, add 3d10% to your Charisma and 2d10% to your Strength. Once this reaches 100%, your ability score increases by one point.

Level --- Attack --- Defenses --- Hit Points --- Features
1 --- No bonus --- +1 Will --- No gain --- Inspiring Word
2 --- No bonus --- +1 Will --- No gain --- Stand Tough
3 --- +1 melew --- No bonus --- +1d10 --- Commander's Strike

Inspiring Word (recharges on a 10+): One ally within 60' gains 5 temporary hit points that last until the end of the next round.

Stand Tough: You and allies within 25' get a +2 bonus on saving throws.

Commander's Strike: As a standard action, choose an ally and an enemy that are each within 30' of you. That ally makes an attack against that enemy.