Angel Tarragon
Dawn Dragon
Hmm.....either you are borrowing some of my ideas, we use the same books for inspiration or great minds really do think alike! The barbarian looks a bit like like the Tale Barbarian Advanced Class.
[RCFG] RCFG Ongoing Development!
- Thread starter Raven Crowking
- Start date
Hmm.....either you are borrowing some of my ideas, we use the same books for inspiration or great minds really do think alike! The barbarian looks a bit like like the Tale Barbarian Advanced Class.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Removed
Last edited:
Aus_Snow
First Post
I just had a quick look through. It seems as though your design direction and my own (currently) are pretty much at weird angles or so. Hence, my perspective on this probably isn't going to me much use to you!
But ah well, why not eh?
There were a few rather minor editing issues, but well, I can't remember them right now, and besides, this is not a finished product. Big deal!
For the most part, I like the races - they're nicely flavoured, yet don't appear to overly restrict a potential player. However, I would suggest -2 Int (or even Wis, if it had to be) for Orcs, rather than -2 Cha, given how Cha translates to Willpower, among other things, in your rules. They just didn't strike me as more weak-willed than the norm, or less intimidating, f'rex. And Dwarves being able to choose Wizard kinda grated, in the context you've created/recreated of race->class restrictions (as in, total bans, not level limits.) But then, I suppose my 'classic Dwarf' is just different to yours, and that's obviously quite OK.
I found the spellcasting progression odd, though no doubt you have your reasons, and yes, I'd love to hear them!
A whole new power level of spells every class level, then after 7 or however many of these, that's it, with just some additional spells per day, and really rather few class abilities at that stage as well. The Cleric's progression was particularly glaring, I thought: 15th level (the absolute maximum; 'Epic') yields no more spells [known] than 8th-9th, depending on stats. That's a long time, a hell of a lot of XP, and two significant 'ranks' (Name and Epic, IIRC) without gaining any new powers of the primary priestly variety (i.e., Divine Magics.)
Hm. I should give it a more thorough reading. Still, you did ask. . .
But ah well, why not eh?
There were a few rather minor editing issues, but well, I can't remember them right now, and besides, this is not a finished product. Big deal!
For the most part, I like the races - they're nicely flavoured, yet don't appear to overly restrict a potential player. However, I would suggest -2 Int (or even Wis, if it had to be) for Orcs, rather than -2 Cha, given how Cha translates to Willpower, among other things, in your rules. They just didn't strike me as more weak-willed than the norm, or less intimidating, f'rex. And Dwarves being able to choose Wizard kinda grated, in the context you've created/recreated of race->class restrictions (as in, total bans, not level limits.) But then, I suppose my 'classic Dwarf' is just different to yours, and that's obviously quite OK.
I found the spellcasting progression odd, though no doubt you have your reasons, and yes, I'd love to hear them!
A whole new power level of spells every class level, then after 7 or however many of these, that's it, with just some additional spells per day, and really rather few class abilities at that stage as well. The Cleric's progression was particularly glaring, I thought: 15th level (the absolute maximum; 'Epic') yields no more spells [known] than 8th-9th, depending on stats. That's a long time, a hell of a lot of XP, and two significant 'ranks' (Name and Epic, IIRC) without gaining any new powers of the primary priestly variety (i.e., Divine Magics.)Hm. I should give it a more thorough reading. Still, you did ask. . .
Raven Crowking
First Post
Removed
Last edited:
The_Warlock
Explorer
I am REMISS! I've been plowing through a simplified magic item creation system in my own game designing the past week and haven't had a chance to look at the new link.
I'll hopefully give it a gander this coming weekend...
Aus_Snow
First Post
Ah. Gotcha. Either I missed that memo, or yeah, it wasn't there anyhow. That - now - makes perfect sense. And the rest, well, it's purely preference, and that's cool.
And yes, alternatives to the most obvious [typical] basis for half-orcs' existence can't be too bad a thing.
Oh sure, and that's fair enough. It's a 'gut feeling' thing, little more. And again, preference.
Honestly, it looks to me - inasmuch as I'm assuming certain other things about the system that I can't possibly know yet
(like the spells themselves, say) - like casters will overshadow them, big time. If they're gaining spell levels twice as rapidly as in, say, D&D 3e and several earlier editions at least, and martial types don't appear to have anything much (or at all) over their 'ancestors'. . . hm. What am I not seeing here? Your game mechanics have tended to make too much sense for this to be quite that simple, I know. So. . .?Re: rethinking your designs, like I said, I just have my preferences, in most of these cases. If there was anything that leapt out as potentially 'broken', as far as I can see at the moment, it would be the spellcasting progression, especially when looked at alongside the martial class(es?).
Raven Crowking
First Post
Removed
Last edited:
Raven Crowking
First Post
Removed
Last edited:
The_Warlock
Explorer
I've now had a chance to give a cursory read through, though not an in-depth dissection.
I can say straight off that it's not quite my style, though I find it a very interesting interpretation of the older concepts into the more modern mechanical system.
The focus on temporal/secular power provides for a much different series of end goals for characters, and certainly is much more supportive of both sandbox style play and ongoing world play (ie, characters are retired to become part of an onging world with consistent players who can look back and see the impacts they've had on a homebrew world).
I very much like the sidebars which say why things were done, and the reasons, while reminding the gamemaster repeatedly that they can change what they want and giving minor insight into what the most commonly anticipated changes might cause.
The one thing I noticed in a few of the class abilities I did read through was a flip-floppiness of some applications of math - this part of the power is a divisor rounded down, and this part is a divisor rounded up.
While back in the day I COULD recite the titchy back and forths of 1E, and it was with a sort of pride, I've found over the years that despite players supposedly having all the math done ahead of time, it's minor things like that that cause the greatest arguments and head scratching as people try to remember that one rule which is different.
It's no dealbreaker, but I've become a stooge for the consistent rule application police in my old age.
I'll give a more thorough read through later and see if anything else encourages commentary from the gamer side of the brain.
Good work overall, and a very interesting take on the fantasy genre.
I can say straight off that it's not quite my style, though I find it a very interesting interpretation of the older concepts into the more modern mechanical system.
The focus on temporal/secular power provides for a much different series of end goals for characters, and certainly is much more supportive of both sandbox style play and ongoing world play (ie, characters are retired to become part of an onging world with consistent players who can look back and see the impacts they've had on a homebrew world).
I very much like the sidebars which say why things were done, and the reasons, while reminding the gamemaster repeatedly that they can change what they want and giving minor insight into what the most commonly anticipated changes might cause.
The one thing I noticed in a few of the class abilities I did read through was a flip-floppiness of some applications of math - this part of the power is a divisor rounded down, and this part is a divisor rounded up.
While back in the day I COULD recite the titchy back and forths of 1E, and it was with a sort of pride, I've found over the years that despite players supposedly having all the math done ahead of time, it's minor things like that that cause the greatest arguments and head scratching as people try to remember that one rule which is different.
It's no dealbreaker, but I've become a stooge for the consistent rule application police in my old age.
I'll give a more thorough read through later and see if anything else encourages commentary from the gamer side of the brain.
Good work overall, and a very interesting take on the fantasy genre.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Removed
Last edited:
Similar Threads
