Those willpower points seem an expanded and more complex version of SW SAGA's Condition Track. I might be a bit partial, but SAGA's deal, with damage over a certain threshold giving you effectively a 'negative level'. While it's got its exploits (the CT killer build that abuses the system to drop people in one shot) a more rugged system with more than five discrete points might be interesting.
Those willpower points seem an expanded and more complex version of SW SAGA's Condition Track. I might be a bit partial, but SAGA's deal, with damage over a certain threshold giving you effectively a 'negative level'. While it's got its exploits (the CT killer build that abuses the system to drop people in one shot) a more rugged system with more than five discrete points might be interesting.
I'm not sure that I understand. can you elaborate on this system, and what you mean by "more than five discrete points?"
@Eldritch_Lord
That is a shiny new system you've got brewing under your cap! Unfortunately, even if you had all of D&D work out to look exactly the same on the surface, it would be completely different, working off of an inspired new mechanic.
Could you be bothered to write up a few spells and abilities in terms of your condition tracks? I am intrigued but not fully engaged by the idea... Flesh it out!
So, is the idea to ignore the problem of binary defense-based attacks by making the conditions non-binary? So rather than just being "confused" at -5, you are "kind-of-confused" at -2? Or would it also incorporate gradual defenses?
That's beuatifully elegant, Eldritch!
Maybe the Mental Track could have -4 be "can't make decisions on their own (DM-controlled, effectively), and action decided by what lowered mental track to this level." So Dominate makes it so you follow the dominator's command, while confused makes you act randomly as the table denotes.
-5 puts you into a catatonic state, or as -4?
Anyways, getting a better mental state is definitely something harder to quanitfy.
For physical and mental, you can mirror Mobility with the Fortitude and Will Save aspects of Mettle, respectively.
Now... would you say this system answers the need for gradual defenses by instead making the effects of binary defenses gradual? Or would you also have physical, mental, and mobility "hp" that would prevent sliding up and down the scale until they are depleted?
I am reading this with the impression that you are still basing these effects off of a failed binary save.
Huh, this would actually be perfect for a system I'm working on (unrelated to D&D, mostly). Mind if I steal this concept? I've got plans for this.
While taking ability damage hurts your power, no conditions are truly gained until they reach zero (unless your STR lowers enough to increase the severity of your load). As such, they are gradual defenses.Not exactly true. Casters for example demand a mental ability score of 10+X to cast a spell of level X. Thus casters are very vulnerable to their main mental stat being lowered, as they can find themselves unable to cast their best spells, then their secondary spells, and then even their minor spells fall out of their grasp.
HP and ability scores are gradual defenses, and Saves and AC are binary defenses.
That means that, action-by-action, mundanes are mechanically less effective than casters from the start.
Not exactly true. Casters for example demand a mental ability score of 10+X to cast a spell of level X. Thus casters are very vulnerable to their main mental stat being lowered, as they can find themselves unable to cast their best spells, then their secondary spells, and then even their minor spells fall out of their grasp.Indeed, if casters were in a position to have their scores lowered easily. Their weakness is also kind of their strength though.
@veekie and oslecamoWell, by that logic, every character worth his salt will be boosting his saves as much as possible so the chances of failing binary saves are reduced to single percentile digits.
Stats are definitely gradual defenses, though less so, perhaps, than hp. Even though each loss of a stat point hurts you, there aren't many "you aren't tall enough to play here anymore" case. The only exceptions are spellcasting and feats. A fighter could unqualify for a feat, sure, and a wizard could be forced to cast lower-level spells, but that is not necessarily an immediate effect of taking a hit to a stat. It is a binary condition caused by loss to a gradual defense. Think about it: any wizard worth his salt has well over 25 INT. That'll take quite at least rays of stupidity to start losing 9th level spells.
Looking at it purely pragmatically, a fighter doesn't need to have just a 15 STR so he can wield a bastard sword. A fighter should well have at least a 16 or more. So, he has STR to spare before the binary condition kicks in of "no 1h bastard sword." Because it is not a binary defense (one failure then means automatic loss of feat, no matter how high STR is), it is a gradual defense.
The skill system was also streamlined -- you either had a skill proficiency or you didn't, and if you had the skill you would receive a flat bonus. Skill checks were effort-based. You roll 3d6 against a target number, with bonuses based on skill proficiency, circumstance, and "effort". You could gain a bonus this way by using up your stamina to get effort.
This is something quite important to take in mind. One of the main problems in D&D it's the rampant stacking of bonuses that easily gets things out of the roof. Like attack scaling much faster than AC. Sometimes I wonder if the game wouldn't be better if we just put more limits on what stacks, or "ceilings" on much bonus you can get on some stuff.That was the rationale for the Mutants and Masterminds(3E) systems import, its got stricter relative caps, and the basic numbers just work better than the D&D equivalents, since they're more controlled. Heck, even Exalted has better control over bonus types(it all boils down to internal vs external), and thats saying something.
One alternative to stacking is preconditions.Sorta-binary. But multivalent binary.
'Advanced' abilities use more resources, but work better when smacked onto a creature with particular conditions(including health thresholds) afflicting them. This way, instead of going to spam-mode, combat would involve chaining debilitating effects so as to unlock more potent options you can use to end it for good. This applies for martial and magical assaults alike, but necessarily needs either wide availability of advanced attack options or else generic prerequisites. Likewise, on the defending end, you would want to take these conditions off because they enhance enemy lethality.
So for example(using a 'strict' conditions example), a Cremation spell might be a evade-or-die, but requires that the target be Bloodied and On Fire, or it'd simply set them On Fire.
Alternative example(using loose conditions), a Wishbone attack might be a fort-or-die, but requires that the target be affected by at least two [Held](a descriptor applicable to any immobilizing condition, such as Entangled, Paralyzed, Grappled or Pinned) conditions or it'd just do a bunch of crushing damage.
Of course, traditional instakills can still exist, if you waive conditions for having significantly lower HD/level/CR than the attacker. The idea is to have significant fights be more dynamic and get more team involvement despite taking longer.
As someone who plays M&M a fair bit and has spent a lot of time with the system, the PL caps (which are the numbers caps referred to) are a double-edged sword. I see them as sort of a necessity in the genre: you need some way to put Superman and Batman -- even though they are not the same PL, but whatever -- types on the same scale so that they can approach the same challenges. That being said, I do have a rough rangefinder in my head for D&D, but it's a much softer thing.QuoteThis is something quite important to take in mind. One of the main problems in D&D it's the rampant stacking of bonuses that easily gets things out of the roof. Like attack scaling much faster than AC. Sometimes I wonder if the game wouldn't be better if we just put more limits on what stacks, or "ceilings" on much bonus you can get on some stuff.That was the rationale for the Mutants and Masterminds(3E) systems import, its got stricter relative caps, and the basic numbers just work better than the D&D equivalents, since they're more controlled. Heck, even Exalted has better control over bonus types(it all boils down to internal vs external), and thats saying something.
I don't know if the above post is intended to come off as dickish but it did.All my posts do, it helps cover up when I actually am. Plus I like being colorful with slander, it gets boring saying the same stuff over and over again. What I'm trying to say is D&D is a more limited scope than you think and M&Ms is larger and overall it's rebuttal to how you think PL caps forces people to be generic.
Like you're forgetting we're talking M&M not D&D, AC/Defense isn't the only number to deal with. An opponent could have shifted his PL caps favoring Toughness over Defense creating a binary yes or no between the +5/+15 Attack and +15/+5 damage examples that you think are exactly the same thing when clearly they are not, it's like saying Rock Paper Scissors Lizards Spock are all the same thing. Oh, and even the game designer disagrees with you in his official FAQ (http://www.atomicthinktank.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=12557) that All Out Attack and such ignore PL caps.[sigh] ... a 10% chance at $100 and a 100% chance at $10 have the same expected value.
On the same token.I agree with the bolded statement.
a. Find me a optimized my Cleric thread that doesn't suggest DMM(persist), points it's its about melee and no Ordained Champion.
b. Find me something that doesn't agree Mc Wizard can do everything better than Mc Fighter can.
D&D has more sameness within it's design than you seem to think it does. D&D has a sort of spoiler effect, the less useful it is directly relates to how little it will ever get used and it ultimately encourages a one class to rule them all ideal which M&M's literal core concept is about preventing.
The reason characters are seem different in D&D is because you choose to flaw your character out with no benefits (eg I'm going to play a monk!). Where as the reason characters are different in M&M is because the system encourages you to be, as you have an equal potential to be as powerful as you wish to be as either a swashbuckling pirate or spellcasting wizard. Be who you want to be and excel and what you want to do as you want to do, total absolute freedom without sacrifice. Which is exactly 180 degrees from your current view point.
I actually had an idea in this direction, based primarily on the Death domain granted power...This is actually quite nice. If the entirety of a system worked like this, things would be great. I have always disliked the Death Domain Touch of Death because it either kills them or doesn't do a thing--it is effectively turning hp into a binary defense. You either die or nothing. Completely misses the point of hp.
A given SoD or SoS only works if the enemy is below a certain threshold of HP (or they have a certain amount of Nonlethal damage applied); otherwise, it will deal a little damage, and all that jazz.
I also... let me see if I can find it...I understand the need to limit bonuses from spells so casters don't beat skillmonkeys at their own game, but why cap skills at all? This question extends to Unbeliever and SorO_Lost, too.
Here it is; a bit simple, but eh. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194099)
From the other thread before it derailed.This is fantastic. It makes the binary thing less direct of a problem and introduces more combo tactics. In fact, if this was mixed with the hp-based system Amechra mentioned earlier, then damage would retain a fantastic role in D&D without SoDs losing their flavor. The fighter would have to chop the enemy down to 75% hp before the sorcerer could set the enemy on fire with a spell, then the enemy would need to be at at least below 50% before they could be Cremated by the wizard... TEAMWORK!One alternative to stacking is preconditions.Sorta-binary. But multivalent binary.
'Advanced' abilities use more resources, but work better when smacked onto a creature with particular conditions(including health thresholds) afflicting them. This way, instead of going to spam-mode, combat would involve chaining debilitating effects so as to unlock more potent options you can use to end it for good. This applies for martial and magical assaults alike, but necessarily needs either wide availability of advanced attack options or else generic prerequisites. Likewise, on the defending end, you would want to take these conditions off because they enhance enemy lethality.
So for example(using a 'strict' conditions example), a Cremation spell might be a evade-or-die, but requires that the target be Bloodied and On Fire, or it'd simply set them On Fire.
Alternative example(using loose conditions), a Wishbone attack might be a fort-or-die, but requires that the target be affected by at least two [Held](a descriptor applicable to any immobilizing condition, such as Entangled, Paralyzed, Grappled or Pinned) conditions or it'd just do a bunch of crushing damage.
Of course, traditional instakills can still exist, if you waive conditions for having significantly lower HD/level/CR than the attacker. The idea is to have significant fights be more dynamic and get more team involvement despite taking longer.
Historically, D&D isn't so much of a system as it is a series of kludges, so what does it hurt to pile one more patch onto the mess?Does anyone have an opinion on this? Assuming he meant SoS / SoD instead of all spellcasting, this would make SoDs feel like more of a team effort. On the other hand, hitting players before laying SoS's on them would feel a bit "practiced" might break suspension of disbelief...
If the issue of casters vs mundanes is really an issue of binary vs gradual damage dealers, one kludge that might improve the balance issue would be to give casters a gradual side effect to gradual damage. Make each spell have a % chance to fail equal to current HP / Total HP.
If there is such a thing as a "win/lose condition" in RPGs, it's whether or not your character dies -- at which point, you make up a knew character and keep driving on. If you can't accept loss, then you probably don't have any business playing the game.Very nicely said. This is compounded by the fact that campaigns die no matter how well built your character is, and many DM's don't allow characters directly brought from other campaigns.
the PL caps (which are the numbers caps referred to) are a double-edged sword.Nicely put.
Contrasting examples. In Savage Tides I play a Gold Dragon (supermount with some hand-waiving) and my friend plays a God Wizard. The Dragon is enormously more hardy than the Wizard, practically 5 times his hp, AC tons higher, saves and resistances, and so on. Attacks that the Dragon can treat as the mere stinging of gnats concern the Wizard, leading to prompt teleports, walls of stone, or veils. But, if he doesn't take those actions he's in deep trouble.
Was this ever completed? It's basically worthless, except as inspiration, if it isn't polished an ready for play.(click to show/hide)