Game Designers ASSEMBLE

[littha]

I would definitely scrap the rolls on skill checks if I am honest. Have something like tiered bonuses for certain thresholds.

Spot:
10 points - can see as though using detect magic
20 points - detect alignment
50 points - true seeing 

Then allow concentration on the action to increase the bonus by 50%. Say you didnt have enough points to get to true seeing you could forfeit your standard action to boost your spot and might get it then.

You could also base spell effects off this, allow illusion magic to overcome true seeing if you get more than a certain bonus on spellcraft.

In addition you could have special threshold points on certain things.

Dagger, light weapon, 1d4, 19-20/x2
[Threshold] Spot 50: May sneak attack normally immune targets.
[Threshold] Hide +20: May sneak attack targets without alerting them to your location.

Hide +20 being 20 points higher than their spot.

Improved critical
[Threshold] Spot 20: double increase to critical threat range

[kellus]

Although I can totally see the argument for abilities that just come online like that at certain levels of skill proficiency, I think that they're in general a bad idea for a freeform role-playing game because simply by existing they limit the number of things most people can try to do, which in a tabletop game literally starts as everything. This is related to a problem that comes up from feat bloat, which is that if there is a closed-off option which specifically gives rules on an action, then by inference people who don't have that particular ability cannot attempt it. This is obvious and necessary in a video game since it is limited by its programming, but the one big (BIG) draw that tabletop has over computer games is that people can actually try to do anything they can imagine.

To use your last example, if you specifically mention that you need 20 ranks in Hide to be able to sneak attack without giving away your position, that means that nobody under that skill threshold can even attempt that activity. You're stealth nerfing literally everyone else in the game not in terms of power, but in terms of breadth of options. Because that ability exists, you're taking away from the list of things that people can try to do, which is one of the best things about the d20 skill system. Aside from a few fringe skills, anybody can try to do anything at any time, even if they're not trained, even if that thing they want to do was never described in the rules. Although unlocked skill perks that don't require rolling like that sound like a good idea, they seem to invariably lead to a more rigid game with less flexibility and imagination.

[littha]

Although I can totally see the argument for abilities that just come online like that at certain levels of skill proficiency, I think that they're in general a bad idea for a freeform role-playing game because simply by existing they limit the number of things most people can try to do, which in a tabletop game literally starts as everything. This is related to a problem that comes up from feat bloat, which is that if there is a closed-off option which specifically gives rules on an action, then by inference people who don't have that particular ability cannot attempt it. This is obvious and necessary in a video game since it is limited by its programming, but the one big (BIG) draw that tabletop has over computer games is that people can actually try to do anything they can imagine.

To use your last example, if you specifically mention that you need 20 ranks in Hide to be able to sneak attack without giving away your position, that means that nobody under that skill threshold can even attempt that activity. You're stealth nerfing literally everyone else in the game not in terms of power, but in terms of breadth of options. Because that ability exists, you're taking away from the list of things that people can try to do, which is one of the best things about the d20 skill system. Aside from a few fringe skills, anybody can try to do anything at any time, even if they're not trained, even if that thing they want to do was never described in the rules. Although unlocked skill perks that don't require rolling like that sound like a good idea, they seem to invariably lead to a more rigid game with less flexibility and imagination.

To successfully attack someone while hiding in 3.5 is a -20 penalty to your roll. Its not as though you could do this without the ranks anyway.

Besides that D&D isn't a freeform roleplaying game. By definition freeform has little/no rules which is just about the opposite of d20.

You also seem to be confused over the relationship between flexability and imagination. Most people find it much easier to imagine things inside a rules system rather than outside one.

[Ziegander]

Getting way ahead of ourselves, guys. Sometime soon I'm going to be coming up with full suite of design objectives, and appointing a design team and a development team (unless someone wants to volunteer to be Lead Developer and then wants to choose their own team). I'll PM the team members the objectives, and work on setting up a forum as quickly afterwards as possible.

Here and at GitP, posters are getting carried away with suggestions that make too many sweeping changes. I think the best idea for this project is to consider it a spiritual revision and errata of the 3.5 Core Rules. With that being said, existing rules shouldn't be completely changed or removed (except in the rarest of exceptions), though they can be simplified, revised, clarified, and added to. Does that still seem like a project that people would want to be a part of?

What I plan on doing is going through every link in the Core Rules section of the d20 SRD and coming up with a list of things that I think should be looked at, revised, etc, and then I'll share those with the Design Team, we'll discuss and refine the list, from there we'll firmly establish Design Goals that are set in stone and get to work.

Keep in mind that I am planning a full-scale overhaul/replacement of the core races, classes, skills, feats, and spells. Basically, all of the Player Options of the core game need completely rebuilt, not necessarily from scratch, but mostly they are beyond any simple fix approach.

[Risada]

Here and at GitP, posters are getting carried away with suggestions that make too many sweeping changes. I think the best idea for this project is to consider it a spiritual revision and errata of the 3.5 Core Rules. With that being said, existing rules shouldn't be completely changed or removed (except in the rarest of exceptions), though they can be simplified, revised, clarified, and added to. Does that still seem like a project that people would want to be a part of?

Fine by me.

Keep in mind that I am planning a full-scale overhaul/replacement of the core races, classes, skills, feats, and spells. Basically, all of the Player Options of the core game need completely rebuilt, not necessarily from scratch, but mostly they are beyond any simple fix approach.

Hmm... quite a daring approach, I would say. But still fine by me.

[sirpercival]

I'm still in.  And I'm in favor of a system that is on the less-changed side, mechanic-wise (at the very least, one where it is relatively easy to adapt my homebrew and other homebrew I like ).  I personally really like 3.5.

[RobbyPants]

I think the best idea for this project is to consider it a spiritual revision and errata of the 3.5 Core Rules. With that being said, existing rules shouldn't be completely changed or removed (except in the rarest of exceptions), though they can be simplified, revised, clarified, and added to. Does that still seem like a project that people would want to be a part of?

Sure. The project I've been working on is similar, anyway. I care more about the feel of 3E than a true fix. I'm just aiming more to make more concepts viable, and secondary, to narrow some gaps.

That being said, I do like the idea of having a lead developer with veto power. I think stuff will get done a lot faster that way.

[Quillwraith]

I would help out with this.

I'm still in.  And I'm in favor of a system that is on the less-changed side, mechanic-wise (at the very least, one where it is relatively easy to adapt my homebrew and other homebrew I like ).  I personally really like 3.5.

Agree. Backward-compatability is good.

(don't take the following too seriously; it's just ideas.)
Why is using a weapon and casting spells a complete exception to how characters get better at other things? There is no need for a fundamental difference in the mechanics.

CONSISTENCY!

Y'could make everything skill based, and give the wizards class abilities using spellcraft, alchemy,  UMD checks, the fighters abilities using , say, aim, parry, martial lore, and have the rogues use all the other skills.

Or go the other way, replace skill ranks with a Base Skill Bonus, and have skill focus(like weapon focus).

Or make it all like spellcasting. Maneuvers pretty much did that for the fighters, so you could give the rogues some kind of adapted skill tricks, 1st-9th levels in ~8 schools.

CONSISTENCY!

[RedWarlock]

This sounds like an ambitious project. I'll be watching this with interest, but not joining in, I think. I'm attempting much the same, but I tend to go for a little more complexity than the base rules, rather than less.

Just as a discussion point, on skills, what I do in my CityScape game (which is d20 derived, but far-removed) is I have a base Combat bonus, and a base Special bonus. Skill ranks (which include weapons skills) grant abilities or act as their prereqs, but the skill rank total is compared against the appropriate base bonus, weapon skills and such against the combat bonus, utility skills (and spells) against the special bonus, with the lesser of the two totals being the actual effective dice bonus. (this also allows me to stack two requirement abilities for ability-effectiveness, running them against each other so a large bonus in one doesn't overshadow the other) Much more complex, but also easier to control effectiveness and determine mechanical flavor in an otherwise loose-structured system.

I've been thinking that my own D&D-fantasy revision, which is more like 3.5e & 4e, which I've been calling 3.9e, might be borrowing in more and more from the CityScape concepts, just because they seem more functional at times, albiet wrong in flavor. (in CityScape, magic isn't divided into arcane and divine, and everyone uses magic, just different non-exclusive subtypes, whereas my D&D would have Arcane, Divine, Primal, Eldritch, and a little bit of psionic.)

What I'm thinking I might do for my 3.9e is simplify the BAB into full and half; combat-centric characters get full, magic-centric characters get half. Then, individual caster-level is likewise skewed to half or full, but on an unlocking basis, so a mage20 would have a +10 BAB and a full arcane caster level, while a knight20 has a full BAB, but no arcane caster level. If that knight had 1 level of mage, he would instead have an arcane caster level of 10. (As an aside, every class in my game will actually have a half caster-level of some kind, because it's flavored as intrinsic magical ability everyone attains with levels. Even rogues will get psionic caster level as a backtype, and psionics is otherwise nonexistent in my gameworld.)

Why I mention all this is, I might borrow back my own Special bonus to use as a skill-effectiveness limiter, to differentiate int-heavy casters from int-heavy skill users, and I've been debating putting weapon skills and magic into the game, likewise using class-derived caps to establish field dominance. Types can be played against, and feats would allow the system limits to be broken to favor a concept (like a gish) but the system would be more directed. For skills, a class-skill-trained bonus like PF's (but also growing with levels) is added to the ranks, and compared against a Base Skill Bonus, and the lesser of the two is what's used on the d20 roll. Classes with less than full BSB have less need for a high number of ranks per level, and could spread themselves out to different types of skills each level gained. This would allow a class to have a wider class skill list, without requiring them to take every level at every level opportunity.

I'm also not joining in because I like using non-SRD mechanics & concepts too much, so my D&D homebrew will have to remain for my own personal use, rather than as part of a sellable product. (my magic system in CityScape is much more original, but also tailored to my Nightmares in the Dark setting.)

(Edit: And the purpose of this long-winded meandering post isn't to try to steal the conversation, which I just realized it looks like, (sorry), but to throw out my own system concept for your examination, and if it looks interesting, offer it up for your use. I like it, but I'm biased.)

[JohnnyMayHymn]

I think the best idea for this project is to consider it a spiritual revision and errata of the 3.5 Core Rules. With that being said, existing rules shouldn't be completely changed or removed (except in the rarest of exceptions), though they can be simplified, revised, clarified, and added to. Does that still seem like a project that people would want to be a part of?

I'm in

[Prime32]

Things I'd like to see:

• CR = HD.
• Monsters get their stats from "built-in" magic items, rather than lots of natural weapons, natural armor etc. (eg. displacer beasts have cloaks of displacement). PCs can loot these items and rework them into usable forms.
  
• To go with this, a generic "brute" class which gives you high physical stats and size increases.
• Spell Resistance doesn't come with a value (i.e. you don't have SR 21, you just have SR); it's a level check. Certain abilities might let you count as a lower or higher level though.
• Standard action full attacks, full-round spells (standard action spells for half-casters, swift action for paladin types)
• ToB-style multiclassing for spellcasters.
• Power Attack, Improved Trip etc. as basic combat options.
• All characters gain maneuvers based on BAB (if we can't use ToB, Libram of Battle works).
  

[littha]

CR = HD might be a pain to do for the non intelligent brute types (Large zombies etc) unless we come up with a better way of scaling HP for these kinds of things.

[zioth]

Of the things on your list hiding/detection is the only one that I consider to be all that important. Using skills for bypassing traps/thievery doesn't actually work in 3.5 without shenanigans, crafting is done using spells and feats, knowledge does nothing unless you're talking about the Knowledge Devotion feat, social encounters are basically magical tea party with or without skills, athletic ability matters very little when you can fly, and non-magical healing literally doesn't exist (outside of the Healing Hands skill trick and the Crusader class).

I think this says more about your DM (or DMing style) than about the skill system. Skills are one of my favorite parts of D&D. I like to be the best hider or tumbler or whatever in the party.

I do agree that a revision would be nice. For example:
- High levels of craft skills let you craft magic items without feats or spells.
- Spot lets you see through spells (as others have suggested).
- Heal checks can do some actual healing, or at least improve the effectiveness of cure spells.
- High levesl of tumble let you do some of the class features, feats and skill tricks in various books (stand from prone as a free action, briefly walk on walls, etc).

Also, I'd be in favor of removing spells that let wizards pretend to be skill monkeys. The wizard should not be the best jumper in the party with a 1st level spell.

[Prime32]

- High levels of craft skills let you craft magic items without feats or spells.

Definitely, even if you can only add straight enhancement bonuses that way - that's what the cooperative crafting rules are for. Or maybe you can use bodyparts from monsters to count the monster as one of the crafters.

And +1 to the rest of that post.

[ariasderros]

CR = HD might be a pain to do for the non intelligent brute types (Large zombies etc) unless we come up with a better way of scaling HP for these kinds of things.

Osle's monster classes do the CR=HD thing amazingly well in every way.

Zombies wold have an ability that grants bonus HP, DR and SR based on size. Similar to construct HP bonuses now.

[littha]

CR = HD might be a pain to do for the non intelligent brute types (Large zombies etc) unless we come up with a better way of scaling HP for these kinds of things.

Osle's monster classes do the CR=HD thing amazingly well in every way.

Zombies wold have an ability that grants bonus HP, DR and SR based on size. Similar to construct HP bonuses now.

Olsecamo's monster classes work much better for players than monsters, every time I have tried one on a monster it got flattened in one round.

[RobbyPants]

CR = HD.

I like this a lot. If it's too much of a change from 3E, I can live without it.

CR = HD might be a pain to do for the non intelligent brute types (Large zombies etc) unless we come up with a better way of scaling HP for these kinds of things.

Give them a Brute ability that increases HP or spend all of their feats on a better version of Toughness.

[TravelLog]

If we do go with a skill system, I think we should definitely link the skill enhancing +2 feats to it as being against automatically at a certain point by characters, as they tend to be almost never taken otherwise with some exceptions like diplomancy.

Alternatively, we could create a system where skills improve with use somehow, rather than skill points. It'd need to be a pretty huge revision though.

[Prime32]

Alternatively, we could create a system where skills improve with use somehow, rather than skill points. It'd need to be a pretty huge revision though.

Urgh... no. Then everyone just says they train at every free opportunity.

[linklord231]

It's like in Oblivion where when you're running from point A to point B you're casting Shield on yourself and jumping the whole time, just to level up your skills. 
That system is already built in to 3.5 in a sense, if your DM uses the Ad Hoc XP rewards for things like social encounters or successfully bypassing a pit or whatever.