Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 5028184" data-attributes="member: 22424">I can see strong arguments both ways. Certainly, I think Dark Sun (for example) would probably work better with a dedicated Dark Sun Player's Handbook (with Psionics in but Paladins out), rather than have to work against an existing PHB.On the other hand, I would be wary of putting out many re-skinned PHBs, as they would likely end up competing against one another. Or people would object to buying the same material over and over again. Or something. (Plus, I do think there is value in there being a baseline game broadly used in all settings, and I suspect a single Core Rulebook is probably a bit limited in scope to provide that.)On the other other hand, I would be very strong tempted to do at least a "young adult" version of the game, drawing influence from the likes of Eragon, Harry Potter, Pokemon and the like, rather than the Conan, Lankhmar and Lord of the Rings of 'classic' D&D.I'm hopeful it could be done - both "Star Wars Saga Edition" and the "Wheel of Time" d20 RPG managed a one-book version of the game with more than 4 classes and more than 20 levels. Of course, it would require that an awful lot of options be deferred, which is unfortunate.I don't think going for levels 1-4 would really work, because I think it's probably really important that the boxed set use the same core rulebook as the 'real' game, and I suspect the player base would revolt if the initial offering was that limited. Based on the example of 4e, it looks like parsing out "the core" will generate a lot of protest, but will eventually be accepted... but I would guess there is a fairly hard limit on how far you can take that.Sadly, no. I'm never going to have the time for something like that, and even if I did I think there are other things I would much rather do (even just in the RPG area). Besides, throwing together a few ideas for the core of a system is probably quite easy - the difficult bit is probably in filling in all the detail, keeping it balanced, play-testing...My initial thought would be that at 1st level, Wizards would gain access to the "Wizardry" talent tree, the base talent of which allows them to cast spells in a 'Wizard' style, and gives access to 0-level and 1st level spells (and a fixed set of spells known). Advanced talents in this tree would probably by specialist powers, metamagic powers, or perhaps bonded item/familiar powers.The 2nd-level talent tree for Wizards would be the "Additional Spells" talent, that automatically adds a bunch of new spells to the spellbook (with a fixed set for the base talent, but after that they could basically choose a number of spells of any level they can cast).And then the 3rd-level talent tree would be "Advanced Spellcasting", which is the one that allows them to cast higher-level spells.So, as you surmised, the player would be able to choose when to gain access to new spell levels, whether to expand his repetoire of spells, or whether to advance his knowledge in other areas.As regards spellcasting itself: Firstly, I would be inclined to introduce a Mana pool used whenever any character wants to "do something impossible". So, that same pool would be used when casting a spell, when the Barbarian enters a rage, when the Fighter uses a magic item, or when the Monk wants to dodge crossbow bolts in a Neo-like manner. I know this is an almost heretical notion in D&D, but I haven't been able to come up with a better mechanic.With a "short rest", the pool would reset to half the character's maximum. In an encounter, the PC can take a special action to increase the pool.For Wizard-style spellcasting, at each "short rest" the character memorises any 6* spells. These can then be used on a per-encounter basis (subject to spending mana). (Again, I would include an action to regain an expended spell.)* Obviously, that number 6 is subject to change. However, my understanding from reading "Tales of the Dying Earth" is that that is actually quite true to the source material - Vance's most powerful Wizards only ever had a handful of spells memorised at a time, rather than the dozens of a 20th level D&D Wizard. Also, I don't recall it ever being mentioned how long Vance's Wizards actually took to memorise new spells, so I think that works.For Sorcerer-style spellcasting, the character would not have to memorise spells, and could cast them all at-will. However, the Sorcerer would both have far fewer spells than the Wizard and also gain slower access to higher-level spells (via pre-requisites on the talents).I'm not sure of the best way to handle Cleric-style spellcasting. Is it better to have a vastly cut down spell-list, and give the Cleric access to all of them (as in BD&D), or to have a longer spell-list but have them learn and memorise spells like a Wizard, of have that longer spell-list but have them know only a small subset like the Sorcerer? (I am certain, however, that the 3e model of "massive spell-list and the Cleric can use them all" is a bad idea. Too many options, and an ever-expanding list of options, make running a Cleric as anything other than a heal-bot very challenging, and nigh-impossible for a new player.)(Speaking of Clerics and healing: I would be inclined to remove the healing spells entirely, and instead make that class function a separate talent in its own right. Or something.)A couple of my more controversial thoughts regarding spells and spell-casting:I would be inclined to bring all of the quick-casting and combat spells forward into the first 5-7 spell levels, and make all the slow-casting and non-combat spells into rituals. (The rituals would then probably be found in the "1st Circle" supplements, rather than the Core Rulebook, with one exception.) So, things like summoning spells, long-term enchantments, most illusions, scrying, and the like would become rituals, while even the most powerful destructive spells (meteor swarm or elemental storm) would be reduced in level or eliminated.Secondly, I would have several 'families' of spells that can be cast at any level. Basically, you could cast a 1st level globe of flame, a 3rd level fireball or a 7th level thermonuclear annihilation as essentially the same spell. (This is probably key in a mana-based system - the Wizard might need a spell and only have a few mana to play with, or he might want to wait, marshall his reserves, and then unleash hell.)Thirdly, every spell should either require an attack roll (vs full AC) to take effect, or should grant a saving throw. (Alternately, I might steal the 'defences' from SWSE or 4e. I'm torn on that matter.) Oh, and "save or die" should probably be removed.Fourth, I'd be inclined to rule that a character can only have a single spell effect active on him at a time. Thus, at a stroke we eliminate the nightmare that is caused by hitting a high-level character with dispel magic, and also a large part of the nightmare of stacking. (A character under a 'positive' effect who then receives another 'positive' effect could choose which to keep. Otherwise, the highest level effect takes precedence. Which means that a high-level heroes feast or similar would provide protection against a low-level bane, but I don't think that's too much of a problem really.)With magic items, I would basically have four categories, broadly being: trinkets, standard items, signature items, artefacts.Trinkets would be things like potions, scrolls and wands. These are basically single- (or limited-) use items that let the character do something they probably couldn't do otherwise. Pick them up, spend the mana, and use them.Standard items would basically be familiar to existing D&D players, and would basically be similar to most 4e magic items: a nice boost to the character, but probably nothing special. The only slight wrinkly I would introduce is that an item would need to be 'claimed' before it could be used. (Claiming an item would be a trivial ritual, and the only one in the Core Rulebook, that basically consists of announcing "and the staff is mine!") So, here we have our swords +1, slippers of spider climbing, and the like.Signature items would be similar to Weapons of Legacy - items that grow along with the character, and are considered almost a part of the character. These would basically be immune to being lost/stolen/destroyed, either because of an outright immunity to such things, because they "always somehow find their way back", or because the character just happens to call whatever sword he's using by that same name (like the Grey Mouser). These are actually probably best handled with talent trees, being innate to the character rather than the item. (Obviously, this category would include Aragorn's Anduril, Sturm's sword and armour, Hank the Ranger's bow, and so forth.)Finally, there are the artefacts, which I would actually expand to include all items that are both unique and wondrous, rather than just the very powerful items. These are handled very well in 4e, so I'd probably just ape much of that. Although I might be inclined to suggest that all artefacts should have an ego and intelligence of some sort.(Hmm, perhaps artefacts should have one or two powers that anyone can use, and then a number of more powerful powers that can only be used once they're 'claimed'. And so, we have items like The One Ring, that are always there, always begging to be claimed...)Or at least, those are the ideas I've been bouncing around for spells and magic for this theoretical system I'm definitely not working on. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification