Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Bronzebeard

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8
101
Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) / Source vs. Save
« on: November 23, 2015, 07:06:39 AM »
A sort of open question towards everyone:



Assuming each character is armed with six saves - each tied for each ability (Str. Dex. Con. Int. Wis. & Cha.), what sources of damage or attack would you associate with each save?

(click to show/hide)


Good day to all.

102
Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) / Re: Decomposing spells
« on: November 23, 2015, 03:58:32 AM »
That is, actually, immensely helpful.
I must say, though, the formatting is a bit hard to read.

I'd like to use it, with your permission, for my own nefarious plots  :D . I'll probably tweak and change around bits and bobs so they would fit.


I also went ahead and read the Introduction and Overview for Arhosa and I fully support the (sort of) mission statement presented in it, especially the magic equipment part.
The different spell systems are a good read as well.
All in all, I'm very happy that you responded to me and that as a result of that I read you work.
Have you tried measuring the spells from the PHB? How do they measure out comparatively?
Would you mind elaborating on your intention and implementation of balancing out the different spells? e.g. how would you know that, say, the Rune of speed is in line with Necro's spiritwalk?

103
Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) / Re: Decomposing spells
« on: November 22, 2015, 08:03:18 AM »
I'll tell you what I mean and I hope that this would make more sense to you and enable you give you a better picture for what I'm aiming at.

So, the 3rd edition DMG "propose" a way of creating new spells. I using quotation marks because this side note doesn't really have rules that you can follow. The only thing it does is quantify the payment for the research and suggest that you look at similar spells to base your design.

My problem with this approach is that it is very unfair, that is to say that the spells made this way are not balanced and are very hard to be measured. Also, existing spells are difficult to compare (or very easy). One symptom is optimization guidelines that flat-out state: This spell is sub-par, that one is uber. etc'.


What I'd like to have is a spell-building rules for both, balancing spells, and giving tools for players to be creative with. I don't really take into account the Classes, Races or power-sources for the moment. So, for this discussion I'm ignoring those.


@Stratovarius - Are you intending on continuing with this? How will you balance those? or Are you simply consolidating a list?

104
Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) / Re: Decomposing spells
« on: November 18, 2015, 05:15:44 AM »
Summoning [creatures / noncreatures]
[Dealing/removing] (ability) damage.
[Applying/removing] (de)buffs.

I have a few questions if you will:
What make the summoning of creatures different from those of items?
Isn't healing another form of "buffing"?
Shouldn't we split buffing and debuffing? i.e. applying boon, removing boon, applying harm, removing harm.
What about inside and outside source? Like the spell daze in comparison to the spell hold person.
Where does the elements of fire, water, earth, air, metal, etc' come into play?

105
Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) / Decomposing spells
« on: November 17, 2015, 05:17:56 AM »
I just wanted the community's assistance in a certain thought experiment.

What I need is a list of basic properties that comprise all of the available spells.

For example:
Some spells inflict direct damage.
Some spells summon additional bodies.

I guess there are more.

Would you kindly help me?
Thank you.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Editing: Here be the table of spell schools

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
--> MajorBuffBuffDebuffDebuffDamageControl
V Minor Vaddremoveaddremove
Buffadd--------Illusion
Buffremovetransmutation--------
Debuffadd--------
Debuffremove--------
Damage--------
--------
ControlEvocation--------
--------

106
Game Design / Re: Tag-Based Armor and Weapons
« on: July 27, 2015, 03:57:15 AM »
Well...
Having the armor and equipment modular is a step up from the current system in d&d.
I always had a hard time wrapping my head around the disparity between the elven blades introduced in Races of the Wild and the "normal" blades, making the latter ones the superior ones because of low feat cost.

@Amechra - I'm  truly sorry. I don't understand completely what are we looking for.

107
Game Design / Re: Tag-Based Armor and Weapons
« on: July 23, 2015, 10:51:00 AM »
Your writing is a tad too general to be replied to in a constructive way, I feel. I still would like to reply, so forgive me if what I say is not what you meant to discuss.


There are two variants that, I feel, should have been included as part of the basic rules:

I guess you can take it as is or refine it to your needs.
I tried to take it as basis but got stuck in the way.
Armor is simple: You're armed or your not. Each armor has it's own rating and some have additional defense against either bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing.
Shield acts differently. Not sure if to add it to armor rating (what happens if I bash with it) or to dodge/AC (and if I'm attacked from behind)?

Grouping is more interesting to me. There are the classics: Sword, Hammer, Axe, Bow. But then: Polearms? includes spear? and what with staff? glaive? Does Sword include dagger? zweihander?
Further thinking is needed.

 :D

108
Game Design / Re: The return to Gradual & Binary Defenses
« on: July 23, 2015, 10:25:04 AM »
I went back and forth on the table and, eventually, came up with the following.
Again, nothing is set in stone and your contribution and criticism is very much encouraged.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Each condition is in addition to penalties from earlier in the same row.

I tried to avoid using absolutist terms and give options where I could (for example, in the fear row:  Don't attack the fear source --> -2 penalty against attacking fear source.)


BonusMinor-PenaltyPenaltyMajor-PenaltyK/O
Strength (Brawn)***Halve movement speed.Helpless. Cannot stand. Cannot Carry items.
Dexterity (Agility)**Halve movements speed.Stays in place. Cannot AoO.Paralyzed. Cannot act. Standing motionless.
Constitution (Fatigue)**Can't run or charge.Halve movement speed.Unconscious / Fainted. Cannot act.
Intelligence (Clarity)**Must use 1 actions less out of the possible actions during a player's turn (player's choice). Can't Full round action. Cannot concentrate. Can act only as a response to other's action.Standing confused. Cannot act.
Wisdom (Fright)**Additional -2 penalties for all actions against source of fear. Cannot act against source of fear.Panicked. Use all actions to increase distance from source of fear.
Charisma (Compulsion)**Additional +2 bonus for specific action chosen by charm source.Additional -2 penalties for all actions that contradict the suggestion of the charm source.Dominated. Actions decided by controller.

Each column gives the following modifier for active actions (ability check, skill check, attack, etc.), but does not change defensive rolls such as Saving throws (to avoid the spiral as mentioned above):
Bonus: +2
Minor-Penalty: -1
Penalty: -2
Major-Penalty: -5
K/O: -10

Major-Penalty end at the end of encounter.
Penalty and former penalties end after a full night's rest.
Magical healing comes into effect when applied.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That's an interesting idea. Pathfinder's approach of making concentration checks actually relevant/difficult again helps somewhat with this, also. And then of course you could just drop the whole casting defensively mechanic (and Shielded Casting, etc) entirely, and go back to the way things worked in 1st and 2nd edition D&D.

There's a possibility that I never played with them, because I'm not sure what you mean.

109
Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) / Re: Discussion on Vancian Magic
« on: July 05, 2015, 08:07:23 AM »
The main mechanica difference between Divine & Arcane spellcasting is the Armored spellcasting penalty... An Arcane spellcaster cannot cast spels effectively while armored, unless they belong to a select few classes or have a certain feat, but even then they only get access to Light armor. Divine spellcasters on the otherhand may cast spells in practically any class of armor at no penalty.

I know that's a rule that exist. I just don't consider it to be relevant to the matter because... well... it isn't! Besides the fact that it has no weight in gameplay almost at all. It also does not give any color, feel or thema to arcane or divine casting. Take for example the augment sub-mechanic for the psionics casters. It is something that is very core to them, appears in almost every play style and define them.


I don't know if I mentioned it once already in this thread... but a system my group uses for sorcerers to make them actually feel different is to have Sorcerers run on the Spellpoint system. Sorcerers are supposed to be masters of their magic so having them use spellpoints instead of spell slots gives the class more flavor and makes them actually feel more like sorcerers and less like crippled wizards.

I think you already did. Although, truth be told, Sorcerer and Wizard already seem to be carbon copies of each other. What with the spell lists being the same, Summon Familiar and the like. I never understood the reason for a whole class that had just one change from the classic.


You can google Malazan and Warrens and find oodles of information for it.

That's the problem, oodles.
I don't think you detest me or wish harm upon me. It's just that I find the answer of "Just google for it" quite irritating. There's a lot of items for what we discuss. And they are not organized by any order what so ever. I found the dedicated wiki, some posts and another 12K results. I can't, in good time, read all of them. So, I'm sorry, if you can't be more helpful or cannot direct me to a more specific location then I'll have to give your suggestion (as lovely as it sounds) a pass.


As a general matter I'm agnostic as to divine v. arcane.  D&D has a sort of default meta-setting that implies a division of powers between these two things, and a division of character roles.

The rules/dice/math suggest that there is no difference between the two. Even if the fluff is different, it makes no impact whatsoever.


I would happily call everything magic, in some form or another, and leave the rest to some combination of game mechanics and fluff.

One solution could certainly be that all spellcasters be merged into one. It's... a possibility.


Again, lazy designers putting a bunch of spells in the wrong schools does not mean the school system itself is flawed when we're talking about how schools should be handled.  It's like say that the iPhone app store is a terrible idea because app developers put terrible apps and adware in it--the app store itself is a fine idea, it's the fault of Apple for not policing it better, and under more rigorous guidance it would work just fine.

Unfortunately, in this game you simply do not have power over the players once you hand them the framework. Most people will use what exist because it's the easy route. Some will house rule. Only a few will create their own game. But there will always be those who mock up spells and switch things around which breaks the rules. You can finetune the RAW. You can't enforce RAI.


...D&D wizards implies a rigorous scientific magic setup...

Can we change shape the scientific feel? The only attemp close enought, IMO, is the Wild Mage because of his unpredictability. Even then he is still confined by a list that was pre-written, a dice that must be rolled and base cases for spells. How would one approach eliminating the "scientificism"?


If you're not planning to present spells to the players as attack/buff/BFC/etc. spells, then why are you talking about replacing schools with those classifications?  You just said yourself that we already talk about certain kinds of spells based on their usage, so having spell schools obviously doesn't prevent that at all.

Because, if every school had spells with different names, flavors, special effects and colors but would still do the same thing across the board - then schools would be meaningless.
Since the schools are a way to create different kind of mages, then they need an obvious separation. The number of spells in each school's list won't do it. The name or description won't do it. Only (in my eyes) different ruling or benefits will do it. For me it's easy to group them by field of bonus. I'm open to suggestion.


Giving different mechanics to different kinds of casting is historically something D&D has done just fine, it's all the noncasters that all use the same general mechanics and blur together too much.
:lol  true dat

110
Game Design / Re: The return to Gradual & Binary Defenses
« on: July 05, 2015, 03:23:45 AM »
There's also a genre conceit question, too.  One of the staples of heroic fantasy is that being bloodied and ragged makes you look kinda awesome, but doesn't seem to be all that much of an impediment to doing things.

Generally, I think giving mundane types ways to affect things other than hit points -- so that they can participate in wearing down other defenses (e.g., being prone hurts your AC, stat drain, intimidate, and so on) -- and perhaps streamlining the proliferation of modifiers that exist in D&D would be nice things.

The original motivator, I think, was to put hit points and save or suck effects on a more level, or at least consistent, playing field.

Well, I can say that I'm not intending on changing the way d&d is played and thought of. I'm not going for ragged. But if I could use the bloodied and wounded modifiers to key off front liners abilities (think about rage getting stronger) and having it hinders squishies (having penalties to magical skills before dropping would give an incentive to keeping yourself to the back row, I hope). Maybe this will give a bit of a tactical volume?
The conditions thing are a major problem for pen and paper. I'm not a machine...  :-\


I like the idea of being able to combine damaging attacks with status effects (exhausted, entangled, etc) for "mundanes", as special attacks of some kind, rather than having loss of hit points itself inflict some kind of penalties.
Well... yeah... otherwise the game is quite... linear?

"Gritty" and "realistic" don't belong in the same game asBears that summon other bears while riding on bears. Did I mention the bears? There's a whole sleuth of them!"

111
This is very (very) close to something I've been thinking of, on and off now, since WoTC announced the 4th edition.
However, before I give you any criticism on your idea - there is something very important, very core, that I'm missing here:

Your goal. Or, your general aim with this item?
We can treat Homebrew like we treat PrCs and conjure one every few hours. But I'd much prefer if you could tell me what are you thinking of when your working on this. What's grinding the gears the wrong way around that you thought that this was needed?


Thanks,

112
Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) / Re: Discussion on Vancian Magic
« on: July 01, 2015, 04:33:37 PM »
Could you, please, explain the way warrens of malazan work?
Also, I would like to hear from you regarding divine vs. arcane if you have an opinion about that.

I was toying once, with having the arcane casters pick "perks" each level that were simple bonuses to certain spell descriptors, like +1 to fire spells, +1 heal, +1 to ray touch attacks, +2 necrotic damage. etc.
Another item was the fell energy from Warcraft. Basically it gives the mage limitless power, however, the higher the spell or damage inflicted or concentration needed or the feat he's trying to pull then the greater the risk for him and it could all backfire horribly horribly wrong. Kinda like the bright wizard from warhammer.

 As for sorcerer's: what differences? They seem too much the same (and warmages, and elementalists, and offensive clerics)

113
Game Design / Re: The return to Gradual & Binary Defenses
« on: July 01, 2015, 04:15:34 PM »
Oh. I see.

I know it more by "infinite Xp profit" where by in flash games you can buy talent with xp that gives you a percentage xp boost hereafter. Quite silly. Also known as unstable equilibrium.

 For starter don't know what the modifiers should be to any of the conditions. Giving a minus for checks in the field of that same field the character just failed seems a bit deterministic. If I was spooked once having another minus four against my next wisdom check is kinda harsh.

However, having this exact penalty would, hopefully, incentives the players to protect the characters that are just one step away from k/o. Maybe...

Taking the HP specifically - my thought was of not dividing the points pool to stages. Instead have the characters a multiplication of their HP as the steps. For example, misha is a second level wizard. She has rolled decently but has low constitution bringing her to seven points of health. In order to kill misha one would have to cause her 28 points of damage. Seven points to bloody her, seven more to wound her, another seven to get her dying and last seven to kill her. These phases replace the death saving rolls one is needed when out of hitpoins, or the use of negative points.
It is possible to enforce each step reduction to be affected by only one attack, safeguarding against one strike death but prolonging battles. Critical can play roles in shifting steps. The health steps could be with or without consequences. Affected (sneak attack) or affecting (rage) class abilities. Again - your input is greatly appreciated.

 I'd like to note two things:
A. Major goal is having a more engaging combat with more options.
B. Minor goal is keeping battle rules elegant, easy to remember and not overly number crunchy.

114
Game Design / Re: The return to Gradual & Binary Defenses
« on: June 30, 2015, 09:12:09 AM »
I don't think implementing a death spiral for HP is a good idea, personally.

Please explain your reasoning?

Thank you,

115
Game Design / The return to Gradual & Binary Defenses
« on: June 29, 2015, 10:25:08 AM »
After reading SneeR's excellent theory thread with it's accompanied replies I fell enamored with the idea and wanted to come up with something of that sort. Unfortunately, I was prompted that the thread is old and to reply only if I'm absolutely sure. Hence the new thread.
I came to something close which I wanted to run by you all and hear your different opinions.

The basis is that each ability has a few stages a la StarWars saga condition meter.
There is one positive stage to represent temporary boons.
Three negative stages that are steps. First one is a minor case (-2), usually no special disadvantage. Secondary is slightly bigger negative (-4 or -5), maybe special ruling e.g. can't use full round action when Exhausted (-5 at constitution). After this, major penalty which makes the character nigh impossible to take action at certain aspects, like Paralyzed (-10) at dexterity. This would place more importance at working together and avoiding or helping inflicted teammates.
The last one is essentially "death" state. If you've been inflicted 4 times at the same ability then you're out. Attempting to mimic the Gradual Defense in SneeR's post.

Here are the conditions from the 3.5 edition arranged as described above. At this point I'm not sure whether it is relevant to keep the conditions as they are or change it to something new.

BonusMinor-PenaltyPenaltyMajor-PenaltyK/O
Strength (Weakness)**Weak*Helpless
Dexterity (Immobile)**EntangledPinnedParalyzed
Constitution (Fatigue)**FatiguedExhaustedUnconscious
Intelligence (comprehension)**DazedFascinatedConfused
Wisdom (Fear)**ShakenFrightenedPanicked
Charisma (Persuasion)****Dominated


One thing that is missing is the Hp row.
I think that it is possible to implement something similar for it, incorporating the 3 Death save rolls into the 4 condition steps and also creating new conditions, such as Bleeding, Wounded, Maimed and bloodied (from 4th edition). One thing different is that while the ability saves requires you to attack higher then the saves themselves (vs. ability score), the hp is a pool that usually drains away - you chip away at it until you reach zero and fell your foe. Can it exist within the condition meter? Does it needs to change? Not sure.


Your input greatly appreciated.

116
Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) / Re: Discussion on Vancian Magic
« on: June 29, 2015, 08:37:09 AM »
You know what? You are right. I missed that one. Master Specialist does indeed require you to be in a certain class unlike the unwritten assumption. The other PrC can be entered by a wide variety of combinations (it can be surprising how creative the guys at CO-OP can be).

Specifically for specializing in arcane school I'm less worried about power imbalance and more of game feel - right now the bonus to specializing (in editions where it appears) is +1 spell slot. That is kinda bland and not at all very engaging. I would like to see something different. I went over the ACF from unearthed. However, these do not employ the wizard's main mechanic (which is it's main mechanic) and therefore seems to me kinda bland. Compare, for example, the Evoker variants and the Warmage Edge ability.

As for rambling: ramble away! This is, after all, a theoratical discuassion of epic proportions.
Actually, on that note, is there a mod that can move this thread to the Mechanical Writing forum? I'm not sure if this belongs here or there...

117
Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) / Re: Discussion on Vancian Magic
« on: June 28, 2015, 04:10:09 AM »
@faeryn
Some PrC's are tailored for a specific character in mind. True. Yet, there is the unwritten rule of never demanding a certain specific level as a PrC requirment. So you can, technically, make a swashbuckler-abjurer champion.
As for the ACF from unearthed: They are very nice. And still they only offer a slight change. For the most part they look... subpar. I have no idea who might think that those are game breaking. Silly.

118
Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) / Re: Summoner
« on: June 28, 2015, 03:28:42 AM »
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Summoners are proficient with simple weapons and light armor, but not shields.

Armored Mage (Ex): A summoner can cast arcane spells in light armor without risking arcane spell failure. This only applies to spells granted by the summoner class.
Why would the summoner need armor? Is he supposed to engage in melee? This seems... out of place.

Dispel Ward (Ex): At 5th level, any creature called or summoned by the summoner becomes more difficult to dispel. The summoner adds his Charisma bonus (if any) to his caster level checks when someone attempts to dispel any of his summoned or called creatures.
   These creatures also add the summoner’s Charisma bonus to their saving throws against spells that would force them back to their native plane, such as Dismissal or Banishment.
Wording could change a bit to explain that this is an ability against spells that ends the summoning.

Summon Group (Ex): At 6th level, when the summoner casts a summon spell of a particular level to summon more monsters off of a lower level list, the dice rolled to determine the number of monsters are maximized. So, typically, a summoner would summon three monsters off of a list one level lower (1d3 maximized) and five monsters off of a list two levels lower (1d4+1 maximized).
Has this been checked? Seems a bit much. Maybe roll twice and choose the higher result?

Sculpt Spell (Ex): At 7th level, the summoner gains the Sculpt Spell metamagic feat (Complete Arcane) as a bonus feat, even if he does not meet the prerequisites.
Again. Why? How would a summon spell be affected by this?

Magical Ward (Ex): At 11th level, any creature called or summoned by the summoner gains Spell Resistance equal to the level of the summoning or calling spell plus your caster level plus your Charisma modifier. If the creature already has Spell Resistance, it uses the higher of the two values and adds two if its own resistance is higher.
This, too, seems to be very powerful. Maybe damage reduction instead?

Reactive Summoning (Ex): At 13th level, if an opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from the summoner, he may opt to cast a Summoning spell as an immediate action in lieu of making the attack. This ability uses the attack of opportunity for the round. The summoned monster appears immediately, although it does not act until the summoner's next initiative pass.
Does that mean that the spell becomes immediate action? Or that I need to choose a spell that is already immediate action?

Immunity (Ex): At 18th level, any creature called or summoned by the summoner gains the benefits of one of the following spells for the duration the creature is summoned: Death Ward, Freedom of Movement, Mind Blank, or True Seeing. The caster level for this ability is equal to the summoner's caster level.
Who chooses the benefit? Is it random or decided by DM? or by Player?

119
Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) / Re: [5e] [Psi] Psychic Warrior (INC)
« on: June 23, 2015, 07:59:57 AM »
I love psionics SO much.

Thank you for doing this.

120
Homebrew and House Rules (D&D) / Re: Discussion on Vancian Magic
« on: June 23, 2015, 07:54:51 AM »
That's a feature, not a bug.
Call it any way you want. I still don’t like it. That’s a personal preference.


Well, you'd have to deal with the mechanics that key off of them, like various feats and classes.  The most important thing, I think, though, is what you'd want to about specialist wizards.  How do you build an Illusionist -- which is a cool archetype and should be supported -- in that case?
I don’t think there are classes that rely on the spell schools. Maybe they’re flavored off of them but not directly requiring them.
Feats are another kind of beast and I don’t think I have a good answer to that. Maybe we can shift the reference of a school spell to that of a descriptor keyword since those already carry the bulk of bonus and benefits.
As for the specialists themselves – since choosing a spell school only gives an extra spell per day and ban other schools (which is not a way to create flavor for a character) – a different way would be to grant a bonus. Like the warmage’s class ability of damage boost. Does the beguiler get something? Maybe grant the illusionist that? Generally speaking, give every type of specialist a different boost. Which was what I tried to create with the schools star I presented above.
I know it would resemble more the divine spellcaster with it’s domains. But then again, I still don’t have a solid reason for the difference between divine and arcane spellcasting (and don’t give me a fluff answer).


Note, I should say that some of the schools work fine -- Enchantment and Illusion are the ones that come to mind.  They are neat conceptually and fit a character archetype.  Evocation is an example of one that doesn't quite work, but almost does.  An Evoker makes sense as a master of energies, an arcane blaster type with a little bit besides.  And, it mostly works that way although it has to contend with Conjuration stealing a chunk of its thunder.  I think they could be tightened up, and it'd help if it didn't feel like a sacrifice without much upside, but we're again straying into big project territory.
Which, again, brings us back to the fact that using the arcane schools as a Keyword is boneless use as it doesn’t bring anything substantial to the table.
Instead, I would use the small descriptors such as [Fire][Healing][Summon][Figment]etc. and PrC’s and bonuses for certain actions (improved ray accuracy, Extend Summoning), and so.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8