D&D 4E Throwing ideas, seeing what sticks (and what stinks)

[MoutonRustique]

I note that your d20+NdX is really QUITE different, as its a bell curve. You might really be just better off using a 3d6+N format, or Nd6. (IE, embrace the curve!). 2d6 at level 1 for instance, with another d6 at 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, etc. Or if you like using different die sizes, you could simply use 3dX and progress X from d4 to d20 (thought he jump from d12 to d20 is rather large). Its simpler to roll one type of die, and the big advantage is that the curve stays roughly the same shape, it just gets broader and its average goes up a bit. With the jumps at 3 level increments you have 3d4 at level 1, 3d6 at level 4, 3d8 at level 7, 3d10 at level 10, and 3d12 at level 13. Then you run into the rough patch where there aren't d14s, 16s, or 18s, but you COULD start adding more dice at this point instead, going to 4d8 from 3d12 would work, etc. It isn't perfect, but it avoids some weirdness perhaps?

I've long debated (and still do) whether to stick with the d20... I... well, for now, I'm keeping it (until such a time as I don't...)

The idea behind the "extra die" goes a bit like this :
- with bless being all the rage, adding a d4 is something that's proven to work
- I liked the idea of the boons and banes from Shadow of the Overlord (but I'm very, very skeptical of it's use in actual, higher level play : I get 4 boons, 2 banes... "roll" oh no! I forgot this bane...)
- I like to follow trends (I am a sheep after all )
- the average value maps perfectly with +1/level
- I'm pretty confident that at-the-table-resolution will be effective as there will be no bonuses to reference : roll your 2* die and add them. There's no need to even glance at your sheet once the die are rolled - it's very effective in terms of "human sequence process" (I hope).

*granted, there very well might be more than 2 die to roll (*dis/advantage and such) - but the point remains about the [enclosed resolution] of it.

On the other hand, it's true that there's a very strong "wrongness" about rolling different types of die, it's weird - I wonder why that is... ?

Here's a thought. I have 3 base classes, so if you divided all attacks into one of those three, say 'force', 'deception', and 'ensorcelment' then you could give each base class different effect die sizes for each type of attack. Now, if you acquire 'boons' that provide you with attacks that are related to your weak dice, they're not so effective. Of course it may still make sense to do so, given that each one may be more or less effective in different situations. A fighter might have d8 force dice, d6 deception dice, and d4 ensorcelment dice. He can club you with a melee weapon quite well, and might even be fairly adept at certain uses of magic, if he can acquire them (say something like using a Spiritual Weapon or somesuch). He'd be rather mediocre at tossing sand in the other guy's face, and downright poor at turning the bad guy into a pigeon or whatever.

Actually, I'm not sure I follow here...

I gather :
- there are 3 kinds of attacks (A1, A2, A3)
- there are 3 classes (C1, C2, C3)
- each "pairing" gets a different die value (C1/A1=d4, C1/A2=d10, C1/A3=d8, C2/A1=d12, etc)
- Ah!... I get it now! Forget what I wrote just now.

Ok, yeah, that does sound pretty cool actually! It's a massive departure - but it's a very interesting concept indeed! (very DW in ~feel~ if I'm not mistaken)

This would be an excellent angle to really put the idea of "this class does X well, Y meh and Z poorly" front and center. It would just be a matter of using the keyword structure to "tag" the relevant powers into the desired category.

You get a sort of "instant spell list" in a way - but sorted by "goal" as opposed to "fluff". If you added in (I feel "kept" isn't appropriate at this point ) the power source keywords, you have very solid power selections - all that would be needed to create a class would be a few special abilities (very similar to Essentials - and the 5e caster classes - in a way.)

The trick would be to find the correct "categories/attack types"... A lot of food for thought!

I don't know that I follow your thoughts on traits. Why would Characters gain or lose these kinds of traits? If you're 'strong', or 'determined', or 'analytical' or whatever isn't that really a very basic part of your makeup? I mean there may be traits that can be gained or improved over time, sure, practice is a wonderful thing, but most of them are pretty core, and you probably don't WANT to keep reworking the character's personalities (not that they can't evolve, but I'd prefer an organic process for that, not a level-based "oh, you just acquired a new aspect to your character", which seems forced to me).

Quite right - that's why the choice of progression would have to be stated well in advance and be based upon story or party composition : i.e. your wizard trains with the fighter for 2 hours every day - in a while, he'll be [strong] as well.

And yes, these traits would represent some very "core" characteristics. I'm not at the point of saying : "You pick 2 positive traits and 1 negative trait" or something like this yet. My current thoughts are :
- your class grants a trait (i.e. all wizards are [brilliant])
- your background(s) grant(s) a trait (or a choice from a few traits)
- and you'd probably get one trait of your choice

It's always a though choice between "character growth" and "you are how you are"... This is the kind of thing where different tables could set the "slider" (hehe) differently (every 4th, every 7th, none, etc)

In terms of damage, what's the difference between 'force' and 'bludgeoning'? Aren't they the same thing? Frankly I'd just make all weapon damage 'force' and have done with it. Yeah, some weapons cut you, some don't, some pierce, but big deal. This is a heroic action game, KISS, and just provide a hook for weapon damage so it doesn't fall into the bizarre 'untyped' realm that it did before. Now it can have resistance applied to it, etc.

In this context [Force] is sort of "kinetic energy"/"arcane energy"/"pure magic" - it's main thing is to harm the insubstantial.

However, you can have "blades" of [Force] which cut, or a "Big Guys' Hand" of [Force] that crushes you. It can also incorporate the (I've always found idiotic) [shadow] damage, and such "derivatives" of "not quite physical" damage.

Reduced list : Fire, Cold, Toxic, Force, Slash, Crush*, Necrotic, Radiant, Mental
*I really like the word [Crush], but freakin' [Cold] over here has a stranglehold on the [C]... And the [Fire] union has too strong a grip on [F] to even get at the table to negotiate for [Frost]! Damn these collective contracts!

Absentees : [Lightning], [Thunder]*
*I've always disliked the [Thunder] key word. I don't like sci-fy, and this smells of sci-fy... I don't know why though.

I guess, one could always go : [Physical], [Mental] and have all the other damage types be things that need to be called out and work in a more "obfuscated" way (ala 5e)... Would work, but the "structurist" in me rebels at not having explicit call-outs to rules.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I've long debated (and still do) whether to stick with the d20... I... well, for now, I'm keeping it (until such a time as I don't...)

As have I. I've been tempted to experiment with Nd6 as a mechanism for instance. Now, the old 'd6 system' uses one variation of that. I was thinking maybe however you could do it a bit differently. For example set a 'level of expertise' for each thing you're going to do, and then reroll any die that rolls below that. So roll 3d6, if you have 'level 1' then you get to reroll ones, level 2 rerolls 1s and 2s, etc. That would pretty much allow for 'level 0' (no proficiency), level 1 being ordinary trained, level 2 being expertise, and level 3 being some kinda super snazzy thing that might not even exist. Advantage could either give you 4d6 to roll, or add one level, you'd have to crunch the math on all of that. You can then layer on top of that your normal bonuses and penalties to hit a level-determined DC. There are a LOT of ways to slice and dice this kind of thing, hehe. Which is why I've kinda just not opened that can of worms.

The idea behind the "extra die" goes a bit like this :
- with bless being all the rage, adding a d4 is something that's proven to work
- I liked the idea of the boons and banes from Shadow of the Overlord (but I'm very, very skeptical of it's use in actual, higher level play : I get 4 boons, 2 banes... "roll" oh no! I forgot this bane...)
- I like to follow trends (I am a sheep after all )
- the average value maps perfectly with +1/level
- I'm pretty confident that at-the-table-resolution will be effective as there will be no bonuses to reference : roll your 2* die and add them. There's no need to even glance at your sheet once the die are rolled - it's very effective in terms of "human sequence process" (I hope).

I'm leary of adding more dice to the to-hit system, which means more adding and complexity. I have at least one 'slow adder' player, and believe me, it adds time! I think its a viable scheme though. It will produce a wider range of possible results, but with less variation. Toss in a 'level of success' mechanic and it might turn out pretty well.

On the other hand, it's true that there's a very strong "wrongness" about rolling different types of die, it's weird - I wonder why that is... ?

Old habits die hard. I too am fond of the d20 'roll to hit' for whatever reason.

Actually, I'm not sure I follow here...

I gather :
- there are 3 kinds of attacks (A1, A2, A3)
- there are 3 classes (C1, C2, C3)
- each "pairing" gets a different die value (C1/A1=d4, C1/A2=d10, C1/A3=d8, C2/A1=d12, etc)
- Ah!... I get it now! Forget what I wrote just now.

Ok, yeah, that does sound pretty cool actually! It's a massive departure - but it's a very interesting concept indeed! (very DW in ~feel~ if I'm not mistaken)

This would be an excellent angle to really put the idea of "this class does X well, Y meh and Z poorly" front and center. It would just be a matter of using the keyword structure to "tag" the relevant powers into the desired category.

The details of the tagging is a bit hazy for me right now, mainly since I only invented this idea in this form today! I am happy with the existing keywords, but this would be a different sort of typing, though it certainly could use keywords. My take on it is its really pretty meta-game. You're effectively saying "well, my character is a warrior(knight). So he's got a d8 on 'forceful', and obviously he's got weapon proficiencies." HOWEVER not all forceful need be weapon attacks, and wouldn't be by a far cry. A fireball is probably also pretty 'forceful', its a very direct 'blast you to bits' kind of an attack. However it certainly would seem odd to have it be a forte of knights! lol.

You get a sort of "instant spell list" in a way - but sorted by "goal" as opposed to "fluff". If you added in (I feel "kept" isn't appropriate at this point ) the power source keywords, you have very solid power selections - all that would be needed to create a class would be a few special abilities (very similar to Essentials - and the 5e caster classes - in a way.)

Yeah, some way to tie it in with power source. I'm still thinking about it. That way an evoker wizard maybe is a forceful elementalist (I really hate 'arcane' and want it to die) so fireball is a forte of his. A knight might be better at fireballs than a rogue, who's clearly 'deceptive', but he's going to have a hard time finding a way to cast one.

Anyway, its definitely half-formed as an idea...

Quite right - that's why the choice of progression would have to be stated well in advance and be based upon story or party composition : i.e. your wizard trains with the fighter for 2 hours every day - in a while, he'll be [strong] as well.

And yes, these traits would represent some very "core" characteristics. I'm not at the point of saying : "You pick 2 positive traits and 1 negative trait" or something like this yet. My current thoughts are :
- your class grants a trait (i.e. all wizards are [brilliant])
- your background(s) grant(s) a trait (or a choice from a few traits)
- and you'd probably get one trait of your choice

Yeah, this is part of the thinking that lead me to the concept of 'boons'. You simply get one whenever the narrative says so, and each one (the major ones at least) level you up a level. They obviously also grant you 'something', it could be ANYTHING, a magic sword, a new book of spells, a 'feat-like' additional attribute of some sort, whatever. These can replace A LOT of the other parts of the game, or at least brings them under one umbrella (PPs, EDs, artifacts, magic items, feats, all can be boons).

It's always a though choice between "character growth" and "you are how you are"... This is the kind of thing where different tables could set the "slider" (hehe) differently (every 4th, every 7th, none, etc)

Yes, well, since boons would be given out like treasure, as the narrative dictates, they would inherently embue the system with a customizability. Certainly you could assign levels to boons, though I would feel better about soft-peddling it, much like earlier edition magic items CAN sort of show up at any time, but you don't REALLY expect to give out the Staff of the Magi at level 1.

In this context [Force] is sort of "kinetic energy"/"arcane energy"/"pure magic" - it's main thing is to harm the insubstantial.

However, you can have "blades" of [Force] which cut, or a "Big Guys' Hand" of [Force] that crushes you. It can also incorporate the (I've always found idiotic) [shadow] damage, and such "derivatives" of "not quite physical" damage.

Reduced list : Fire, Cold, Toxic, Force, Slash, Crush*, Necrotic, Radiant, Mental
*I really like the word [Crush], but freakin' [Cold] over here has a stranglehold on the [C]... And the [Fire] union has too strong a grip on [F] to even get at the table to negotiate for [Frost]! Damn these collective contracts!

Absentees : [Lightning], [Thunder]*
*I've always disliked the [Thunder] key word. I don't like sci-fy, and this smells of sci-fy... I don't know why though.

I guess, one could always go : [Physical], [Mental] and have all the other damage types be things that need to be called out and work in a more "obfuscated" way (ala 5e)... Would work, but the "structurist" in me rebels at not having explicit call-outs to rules.

Well, I demand keywords! hehe. I think you're missing [Acid] in your reduced list. Truthfully its HARD to make the list smaller than 4e does or really much better. I just think that weapons can be a type of 'force' and if you want "magical can only be hit by a spell" then just grant the sucker 'immunity to force damage" and make the party find another way.

 

[MwaO]

As have I. I've been tempted to experiment with Nd6 as a mechanism for instance. Now, the old 'd6 system' uses one variation of that. I was thinking maybe however you could do it a bit differently. For example set a 'level of expertise' for each thing you're going to do, and then reroll any die that rolls below that. So roll 3d6, if you have 'level 1' then you get to reroll ones, level 2 rerolls 1s and 2s, etc. That would pretty much allow for 'level 0' (no proficiency), level 1 being ordinary trained, level 2 being expertise, and level 3 being some kinda super snazzy thing that might not even exist. Advantage could either give you 4d6 to roll, or add one level, you'd have to crunch the math on all of that. You can then layer on top of that your normal bonuses and penalties to hit a level-determined DC. There are a LOT of ways to slice and dice this kind of thing, hehe. Which is why I've kinda just not opened that can of worms.

Honestly, I think the only thing the d20 really adds to the system is the illusion of variability and allowing the options of automatic failure/critical hits.

I like the idea of a d6 to hit and a +/- die where creatures(including PCs) are either very strong, strong, balanced, weak or very weak where at-level monsters tend to be balanced as a default and PCs tend to be strong on offense, balanced on defense. A particular monster, such as a Soldier might be strong on AC. A higher level monster would be strong on all defenses and a lower level one weak on all defenses.

If both sides are equal, you need to roll a 4 to hit. If offense strong, defense balanced, you need roll a 3. Offense strong, defense weak(lower than level creature), you need to roll a 2.

A 6 and the +/- die came up as a +, then it is a critical hit.

This tends to weight things nicely towards what actually happens in the D&D system - most PCs tend to hit monsters 65% of the time(i.e. 3, 4, 5, or 6) and monsters tend to hit PCs back 50% of the time(4, 5, or 6). A critical hit happens 8% of the time, which is fine. A tough monster is hittable 50% of the time, which is still doable and a weak monster is hit 84% of the time. A weak monster hits a PC 33% of the time and only 16% if attacking a strong defense. Combat advantage or similar bonuses to hit kick you up a notch and you can't go up/down more than 2.

Then you can kind of ignore level-based defenses. The only real question is if the monster is stronger or weaker than you and what it is good at...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Honestly, I think the only thing the d20 really adds to the system is the illusion of variability and allowing the options of automatic failure/critical hits.

I like the idea of a d6 to hit and a +/- die where creatures(including PCs) are either very strong, strong, balanced, weak or very weak where at-level monsters tend to be balanced as a default and PCs tend to be strong on offense, balanced on defense. A particular monster, such as a Soldier might be strong on AC. A higher level monster would be strong on all defenses and a lower level one weak on all defenses.

If both sides are equal, you need to roll a 4 to hit. If offense strong, defense balanced, you need roll a 3. Offense strong, defense weak(lower than level creature), you need to roll a 2.

A 6 and the +/- die came up as a +, then it is a critical hit.

This tends to weight things nicely towards what actually happens in the D&D system - most PCs tend to hit monsters 65% of the time(i.e. 3, 4, 5, or 6) and monsters tend to hit PCs back 50% of the time(4, 5, or 6). A critical hit happens 8% of the time, which is fine. A tough monster is hittable 50% of the time, which is still doable and a weak monster is hit 84% of the time. A weak monster hits a PC 33% of the time and only 16% if attacking a strong defense. Combat advantage or similar bonuses to hit kick you up a notch and you can't go up/down more than 2.

Then you can kind of ignore level-based defenses. The only real question is if the monster is stronger or weaker than you and what it is good at...

You've PRETTY MUCH invented Strike! I'd urge you to go read it, if you haven't, because it is almost identical to this.

I kind of feel like there's room for a LITTLE bit more granularity. D6 is not BAD, but you can't 'get a little edge' (though I tend to think that most of the time +3 or +4 is about the right granularity, which is basically a +1 on a d6). Where it comes in useful though is to say "yeah, but I got this magic weapon" or etc. It lets you slide in a couple more bonuses.

In my 'hack' of 4e I have 4 bonuses: Level, Proficiency, Permanent, and Ability. Notice these are ALL static, with Permanent being a sort of catch-all where if you have a magic weapon or something it will add in, but only the best permanent bonus (or worst penalty as the case may be) applies, so you don't stack up a lot of little stuff like you would in 4e proper. Now, its true that TO SOME EXTENT you could simply say "higher level or lower level" and make that a +/-1 instead of a level bonus, but it means a new calculation for each opponent, and it has some issues that 5e has uncovered (lack of sufficient range to portray the full range of superheroic fantastical ability that 4e characters can have vs low level ordinary people or even starting PCs).

All that being said, I agree that the system should essentially produce something like what you're talking about. Only really significant factors should be important enough to incorporate on the fly, and they should only 'stack' to a limited degree. I do like the 5e version of Advantage/Disadvantage here, and I've incorporated that as well, so that ALL situational modifiers are either advantage or disadvantage (and any that really aren't significant enough to be either one just don't get counted). That of course still leaves plenty of room to play around, as things can apply only to specific situations and types of rolls, have keyword logic attached to them, etc.

I likewise follow our Sheeply friend in simplifying things like immunity/resistance/vulnerability (no damage/half damage/double damage) and turning AC into DR (trickier than it sounds, you can only really have a small range of DR, and the ugly part is that you need it to be a different range depending on the size of damage outputs).

I did reduce ability scores to the range 0-5, which is a direct bonus, and there are no longer ability score increases (at least if they exist they are not scheduled in level bonuses, they would be boons, and 5 is a hard cap on ability scores). That, plus collapsing to 20 levels does make all the bonus range must smaller. I'm still not sure what will happen with hit points, there's a bit of a complex relationship there between DR, hit points, and attack bonus.

 

[MwaO]

You've PRETTY MUCH invented Strike! I'd urge you to go read it, if you haven't, because it is almost identical to this.

I kind of feel like there's room for a LITTLE bit more granularity. D6 is not BAD, but you can't 'get a little edge' (though I tend to think that most of the time +3 or +4 is about the right granularity, which is basically a +1 on a d6). Where it comes in useful though is to say "yeah, but I got this magic weapon" or etc. It lets you slide in a couple more bonuses.

Haven't yet read Strike - I'm not surprised someone else has done that. The major issue is similar to the 4e issue - at what point does the illusion of being able to do X go away if it seems insufficiently random. Do I need to know that if I rolled a 13 I would hit, but a 14 I'd miss or is simply knowing that I need to roll a 5 or 6 give me the same basic information.

But small bonuses are easy to resolve and probably make the +/- die more useful - if you have some small bonus and you roll a + on the number below what you need to hit, you hit. So let's say you need to roll a 4-6, but you have a small bonus to hit - if you roll a 3 and a +, you hit.

I think it isn't too hard to make the system work. The trick is to make the system so it can obviously incorporate pre-existing powers from 4e in a wink-wink, nudge-nudge kind of way. I wouldn't touch DR at all - if anything, the idea of resistance/vulnerability are the things I want to eliminate by just saying a creature has a stronger/weaker defense. So a Fire Giant might normally have a balanced Reflex defense - but when confronted by Fire, it jumps to Strong or Very Strong.

 

[MoutonRustique]

Haven't yet read Strike - I'm not surprised someone else has done that. The major issue is similar to the 4e issue - at what point does the illusion of being able to do X go away if it seems insufficiently random. Do I need to know that if I rolled a 13 I would hit, but a 14 I'd miss or is simply knowing that I need to roll a 5 or 6 give me the same basic information.

But small bonuses are easy to resolve and probably make the +/- die more useful - if you have some small bonus and you roll a + on the number below what you need to hit, you hit. So let's say you need to roll a 4-6, but you have a small bonus to hit - if you roll a 3 and a +, you hit.

I think it isn't too hard to make the system work. The trick is to make the system so it can obviously incorporate pre-existing powers from 4e in a wink-wink, nudge-nudge kind of way. I wouldn't touch DR at all - if anything, the idea of resistance/vulnerability are the things I want to eliminate by just saying a creature has a stronger/weaker defense. So a Fire Giant might normally have a balanced Reflex defense - but when confronted by Fire, it jumps to Strong or Very Strong.

You really should have a look at Strike! - I've just started reading it, and it looks very much up your alley.

Also, instead of using words to qualify the "power" of the defenses and such, you could use number values directly : weak = 2, average = 3, strong = 4, very strong = 5. You have an instant "DC" right there!

Custom dice would be great for something like what I'm imagining you're proposing :
- advantage die : on 3(let's say) faces there's a "+" sign
- disadvantage die : same but "-"
- the fates are agitated : roll both!

There's all sorts of cool tricks to pull off with these kinds of things!

I know, we could do this with regular die by assigning values and such, but, in play, that's usually more trouble than it's worth. With special die, on the other hand...

 

[MoutonRustique]

As have I. I've been tempted to experiment with Nd6 as a mechanism for instance. Now, the old 'd6 system' uses one variation of that. I was thinking maybe however you could do it a bit differently. For example set a 'level of expertise' for each thing you're going to do, and then reroll any die that rolls below that. So roll 3d6, if you have 'level 1' then you get to reroll ones, level 2 rerolls 1s and 2s, etc. That would pretty much allow for 'level 0' (no proficiency), level 1 being ordinary trained, level 2 being expertise, and level 3 being some kinda super snazzy thing that might not even exist. Advantage could either give you 4d6 to roll, or add one level, you'd have to crunch the math on all of that. You can then layer on top of that your normal bonuses and penalties to hit a level-determined DC. There are a LOT of ways to slice and dice this kind of thing, hehe. Which is why I've kinda just not opened that can of worms.

BACK! Back, I say! You won't tempt me with your curvaceous probability... well, curves!

I'm leary of adding more dice to the to-hit system, which means more adding and complexity. I have at least one 'slow adder' player, and believe me, it adds time! I think its a viable scheme though. It will produce a wider range of possible results, but with less variation. Toss in a 'level of success' mechanic and it might turn out pretty well.

In this case, however, since there will never be any modifiers, the most that will ever have to be added will be 3 die. The extra die would be for things like "advantage" and such - sort of roll 3 pick the best one type of situation.

I have done exactly 0 (zero, none, nada) testing of this, but I'm hopeful it will prove to be fast.

The details of the tagging is a bit hazy for me right now, mainly since I only invented this idea in this form today! I am happy with the existing keywords, but this would be a different sort of typing, though it certainly could use keywords. My take on it is its really pretty meta-game. You're effectively saying "well, my character is a warrior(knight). So he's got a d8 on 'forceful', and obviously he's got weapon proficiencies." HOWEVER not all forceful need be weapon attacks, and wouldn't be by a far cry. A fireball is probably also pretty 'forceful', its a very direct 'blast you to bits' kind of an attack. However it certainly would seem odd to have it be a forte of knights! lol.

Yeah, some way to tie it in with power source. I'm still thinking about it. That way an evoker wizard maybe is a forceful elementalist (I really hate 'arcane' and want it to die) so fireball is a forte of his. A knight might be better at fireballs than a rogue, who's clearly 'deceptive', but he's going to have a hard time finding a way to cast one.

Anyway, its definitely half-formed as an idea...

In a spreadsheet (or dbase) format, this would lead to incredibly easy sorting : I want the [defender] [martial] powers please. Oh and let me look at the [forceful] [martial] ones too please, I'm thinking of going "dual-spec".

Yeah, this is part of the thinking that lead me to the concept of 'boons'. You simply get one whenever the narrative says so, and each one (the major ones at least) level you up a level. They obviously also grant you 'something', it could be ANYTHING, a magic sword, a new book of spells, a 'feat-like' additional attribute of some sort, whatever. These can replace A LOT of the other parts of the game, or at least brings them under one umbrella (PPs, EDs, artifacts, magic items, feats, all can be boons).

Yes, well, since boons would be given out like treasure, as the narrative dictates, they would inherently embue the system with a customizability. Certainly you could assign levels to boons, though I would feel better about soft-peddling it, much like earlier edition magic items CAN sort of show up at any time, but you don't REALLY expect to give out the Staff of the Magi at level 1.

I feel this is more in the realm of [how the game progresses] as opposed to [what is in the game] - I don't think I'm up to the level of progress yet.

Well, I demand keywords! hehe. I think you're missing [Acid] in your reduced list. Truthfully its HARD to make the list smaller than 4e does or really much better. I just think that weapons can be a type of 'force' and if you want "magical can only be hit by a spell" then just grant the sucker 'immunity to force damage" and make the party find another way.

[Acid] is incorporated into [Toxic] in this case. As to the [Force] issue, it's a name thing - I need a type for magic missile and such. For me, that's always been [Force]. If I find another word that resonates more, I'll switch.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Haven't yet read Strike - I'm not surprised someone else has done that. The major issue is similar to the 4e issue - at what point does the illusion of being able to do X go away if it seems insufficiently random. Do I need to know that if I rolled a 13 I would hit, but a 14 I'd miss or is simply knowing that I need to roll a 5 or 6 give me the same basic information.

But small bonuses are easy to resolve and probably make the +/- die more useful - if you have some small bonus and you roll a + on the number below what you need to hit, you hit. So let's say you need to roll a 4-6, but you have a small bonus to hit - if you roll a 3 and a +, you hit.

I think it isn't too hard to make the system work. The trick is to make the system so it can obviously incorporate pre-existing powers from 4e in a wink-wink, nudge-nudge kind of way. I wouldn't touch DR at all - if anything, the idea of resistance/vulnerability are the things I want to eliminate by just saying a creature has a stronger/weaker defense. So a Fire Giant might normally have a balanced Reflex defense - but when confronted by Fire, it jumps to Strong or Very Strong.

Well, I wanted to get rid of AC, because frankly AC is a sore thumb in the whole 4e system. There clearly has to be SOMETHING to replace it with. You could of course simply have an endless list of keywords that give bonuses to each of the 3 NADs based on what's coming at you, so Plate Armor is "+3 to FORT vs melee and missile keyword attacks", but you can see where THAT leads pretty quickly. It wouldn't be BAD for monsters, where you can just basically toss in a couple such modifiers, but even there you're adding complexity (as many monsters wear armor and such). In fact it really harks back to the old Weapons vs Armor Type table of 1e, and that's the direction I want to AVOID.

Of course you could say DR has similar problems, does it apply against spell attacks or not? Or only certain ones? If so what's the list of keywords of THOSE? etc. So, I'm not really all that sure what the answer is, exactly. One thing I've leaned towards however is just overall armor/weapon simplification. There are 3 types of armor, light, medium, and heavy. There are about 12 weapons, EVERYTHING else is one of those 12 (I can see where you might have to bend a bit here, but in general I want to remove excess detail, so in fact all weapons simply have a damage die and handedness, and a category (thrown, missile, sword, axe, etc). I got rid of things like high crit and all that kind of silliness. So that might make the whole defense bonus equation a bit easier. Or perhaps each 'armor' type just has 3 values, a bonus/penalty to FORT, REF, and WILL? Then you'd simply direct each attack against a relevant type. That still leaves some loose ends though, like things that are immune, and the many other keywords and their defense interactions.

Suffice it to say there are a few ways to skin the AC cat, but none of them are perfect.

 

[MwaO]

One thing I've leaned towards however is just overall armor/weapon simplification. There are 3 types of armor, light, medium, and heavy.

That's the thing though about the d6 and +/-. You don't need to worry about that, you just need to ask the following questions:
What's your AC?
What's your defense against spells?
What's your offense?
Do you have any special bonuses/penalties? Where # of bonuses ought to be 2 or less.

A Fighter might be:
Strong AC, Strong defense against spells, Balanced Offense. Balanced Reflex.

A Barbarian might be:
Balanced AC, Balanced defense against spells, Strong Offense, +Fort/Reflex.

A Wizard might be:
Weak AC, Strong defense against spells, Strong Offense, -Fort.

You just get the general level of X right, then shift 1-2 specific things over the whole character to get it right. And in general, don't offer opportunities to shift more things further.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

BACK! Back, I say! You won't tempt me with your curvaceous probability... well, curves!

In this case, however, since there will never be any modifiers, the most that will ever have to be added will be 3 die. The extra die would be for things like "advantage" and such - sort of roll 3 pick the best one type of situation.

I have done exactly 0 (zero, none, nada) testing of this, but I'm hopeful it will prove to be fast.

LOL! Yeah, this is why I decided to stick to d20 and just go with advantage/disadvantage and only static mods. There's likely to be SOME adding and figuring now and then, but not too much. Plus it has more of the feel of being 'D&D', which I like.

In a spreadsheet (or dbase) format, this would lead to incredibly easy sorting : I want the [defender] [martial] powers please. Oh and let me look at the [forceful] [martial] ones too please, I'm thinking of going "dual-spec".

Yeah, its tempting. Now, subclasses could simply have a bunch of keywords, 'warrior(knight) = martial forceful defender' , 'mystic (dragon sorcerer) = elemental forceful striker', 'mystic(priest) = spiritual ensorcelling leader', 'trickster(illusionist) = shadow deceptive controller', etc. It might get a bit intricate though.

I feel this is more in the realm of [how the game progresses] as opposed to [what is in the game] - I don't think I'm up to the level of progress yet.

Boons as progress really are the central idea of my concept though. Because they represent progress and 'rewards' in a holistic way the concept really drives the game design in different directions. Its not JUST about 'progress'. What is in the game becomes deeply affected. For instance it starts to become irrelevant HOW you got your 'Superior Presence', is it an item? Is it a 'feat'? Is it a 'class feature'? Whatever it is, its a boon! Obviously an item is materially different in a narrative sense from a feat (one can be lost or sold, the other cannot) but in a mechanical sense even your powers could simply be boons. In fact as a general rule I've decided that I think MOST power acquisition should be in boon form. So you get to actually select powers based on your level, but which ones you can choose from is mostly shaped by the set of boons you have.

This can have a lot of narrative aspects to it. For instance I thought about a scenario like this "Go to the altar of Iun and endure the vigil of purification of the mind to gain the boon of Iun (access to power XYZ)" which seems pretty thematically cool, now the adventure structure is VERY VERY CLEAR, all the rewards the game has to offer are suddenly aligned! It also naturally provides for different motivations (the rogue isn't especially excited by this adventure, though he may well find something along the way to make him happy). Now, think of an artifact. It grants a couple of boons, you pick it up, you level, and you can now select the powers associated with it. IT REALLY TAKES OVER THE STORY at least for that character. There's no real doubting what the agenda is right now, and the player picked it! He could have stuck with his other powers, basically said "meh, this is cool, but I'm not going to focus on it". Nope, instead its front and center, and he's going to be going after whatever this here artifact is all about, for as long as its around. This whole thing even provides a pretty good rationale for the 'faded hero', once he had a bunch of boons, he gave the magic sword to his son, the helm of brilliance was lost in the cave of darkness, he retired and the favor of Erathis was withdrawn, now he's just 10th level, before he was pretty much a demigod.

[Acid] is incorporated into [Toxic] in this case. As to the [Force] issue, it's a name thing - I need a type for magic missile and such. For me, that's always been [Force]. If I find another word that resonates more, I'll switch.

Right, but how is the damage done by a magic missile different from that done by an arrow? They both impart kinetic energy on the target. In truth there's nothing to distinguish them in my mind. In fact the ORIGINAL magic missile spell, in OD&D, was exactly that, you simply conjured up an arrow and it flew at the designated enemy and attacked him, with the stats for a heavy crossbow bolt IIRC.