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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MoutonRustique" data-source="post: 6808560" data-attributes="member: 22362">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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> ) - 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... ?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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ) 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!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 choiceIt'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 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.</blockquote>

Verification