D&D General Should ENworld Posters Design a D&D?


log in or register to remove this ad


Zardnaar

Legend
Is there any basic assumptions about the style or feel you are going for? There seems to be a lot of things all over the map. First page talks about covering only levels 1-5 and now we are worried about HPs after level11 or caps on powers at high tiers. Is the tone of the edition just to fix what we do not like with 5e or to blend 4e and 5e, or to make something with a cinematic feel or low fantasy, low magic? Would help to know what to design to.

Grittier less hit point bloat initially focusing on levels 1-5 to produce something somewhat playable.

Reigning in hit point bloat, buffing martials and tweaking magic side effects.
 
Last edited:


Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Hmm I could lop a 0 off easy enough on xp.

I'm familiar with UA I own it. Averages out +1 ASI evey 2 levels (same as 5E really +2 every 4).
How are you getting +1 ASI per 2 levels out of that system? You start with a random d% roll for each of Str Dex and Con but then only add 2d10 to each of those per level. On average, each stat will go up by 11% per level (the average of a 2d10 roll) meaning each stat will tick over about once per 9 levels. At best, then, this would roughly equate to an ASI every three levels, only less predictable as to when it occurs and to which stat (which I like).

For my system, where this is a built-in thing for all adventurers, each character can advance two stats or three (a forever-locked-in choice at char-gen). If advancing just two the faster goes up by 3d8 per level and the slower by 2d6; if advancing 3 the faster goes up by 2d8 and the others by d10 each. The faster stat must be a prime stat for the character's class; if the class has a second prime then that must be the (or an) other advancing stat, otherwise it can be any.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Not at all. It says that game design which follows consistent patterns is (far, far, FAR) more likely to actually get played and used.

Bigger is better for some numbers and smaller is better for others just leaves folks confused and creates totally unnecessary quit moments when someone rolls a nat 1 on an attack, or a nat 20 on any roll-under check, and gets super excited only to be told "oh...sorry... that's the worst possible result..."
And exactly as often, it creates win-from-loss moments when a player who thought they'd rolled as badly as possible learns the roll was in fact the best that could have happened.

That, and IME players pretty quickly catch on to what needs low and what needs high; and in cases where it's unclear the DM can say, or the player can ask.

One very elegant way in which roll-low works for us is checking for consciousness when someone gets to or just below 0 hit points (we have death at -10): you need to roll under your Constitution, modified by your current hit point total. So if your Con is 14 and you're at -3 h.p. you need an 11 or lower to stay awake.

Trying to flip that to a roll-high system using the same paramaters would be messy.
I have a player who is one of the smartest people I know, well-educated, articulate, curious, eager to engage with complex subjects. It took them more than three years to remember without asking what the proper process for rolling actions was in Dungeon World, even though there are only two kinds of rolls the players ever have to make, 2d6+MOD and a class-based damage roll (meaning, for Fighter say, it's just 1d10 always, regardless of your equipment). It would be rude in the extreme to condemn them for this; it has genuinely nothing to do with this player's intelligence, education, or participation, all of which are quite high. Instead, the information simply doesn't stick the way they would like. It annoys them that they need to ask so often, but they literally couldn't remember, even though they had been doing this thing for literally three years of almost continuous weekly sessions.
I've had the occasional player like that as well; and after a while it's hard to fault the game. Some people (maybe even all people) just have internal blocks on what information sinks in and what doesn't, and I've seen this in all kinds of situations beyond just gaming. :)
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
@Lanefan what do you think of capping hit points at 1,2,or 3+ con modifier level 11+
More elegant, I think, is a half-size die; e.g. if a Cleric rolls d8 for h.p., at a certain level it becomes d4; a Fighter goes from d10 to d5, and so on. That way the player still gets to roll, but the hit point gain still slows down.

I'd also halve the Con modifier at that point; in 1e where you lose Con on revival from death this isn't so much of an issue, as by 11th level you've usually died and come back a few times and thus aren't getting much if any Con bonus any more, but in 5e where if anything Con could be increasing with level through ASIs those bonuses could end up outstripping the die roll.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
And exactly as often, it creates win-from-loss moments when a player who thought they'd rolled as badly as possible learns the roll was in fact the best that could have happened.

That, and IME players pretty quickly catch on to what needs low and what needs high; and in cases where it's unclear the DM can say, or the player can ask.

One very elegant way in which roll-low works for us is checking for consciousness when someone gets to or just below 0 hit points (we have death at -10): you need to roll under your Constitution, modified by your current hit point total. So if your Con is 14 and you're at -3 h.p. you need an 11 or lower to stay awake.

Trying to flip that to a roll-high system using the same paramaters would be messy.

I've had the occasional player like that as well; and after a while it's hard to fault the game. Some people (maybe even all people) just have internal blocks on what information sinks in and what doesn't, and I've seen this in all kinds of situations beyond just gaming. :)

I remembered the % bit nit what it could be applied to. Average roll will be around 51% so +1 every two levels.

5E ASI is +2 every 4 levels. Similar rate except it can be applied to mental stats.

Do stats need to improve though? Maybe make it a thing that only martials get and only 2-3 times ever? Stats max at 18?
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I remembered the % bit nit what it could be applied to. Average roll will be around 51% so +1 every two levels.
You're not rolling d% every time!

You roll d% once to give your starting point - say your stat is 15 and you roll 54% as your start, so 15.54 at 1st level.

At 2nd level you roll 2d10 (NOT d%) and add it to the .54. So, if on 2d10 you roll 3 and 6 for a total of 9, your 15.54 becomes 15.63.
Do stats need to improve though? Maybe make it a thing that only martials get and only 2-3 times ever? Stats max at 18?
I think they do need to improve, but not as predictably as WotC-era D&D has it. I don't mind stats being uncapped as long as getting to and-or beyond the cap is difficult. 3e went ridiculously far overboard on uncapping stats.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
You're not rolling d% every time!

You roll d% once to give your starting point - say your stat is 15 and you roll 54% as your start, so 15.54 at 1st level.

At 2nd level you roll 2d10 (NOT d%) and add it to the .54. So, if on 2d10 you roll 3 and 6 for a total of 9, your 15.54 becomes 15.63.

I think they do need to improve, but not as predictably as WotC-era D&D has it. I don't mind stats being uncapped as long as getting to and-or beyond the cap is difficult. 3e went ridiculously far overboard on uncapping stats.

Ah I only remembered part of UA derp.

Erm I blame the French yeah that's it
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top