Make your own DnD!

Cafe Society
1

Since there’s been a huge argument over DnD, I though it would be nice to make our own Doper DnD. Yes, this is likely to be an disgustingly geeky thread. On the other hand, DnD, baby!

Here are the rules. If you criticize a previous suggestion/rules change/whatever, you must also compliment it and show respect, and try to comprehend the mindset which suggested it. It’s just an effort to maintain civility. Other than that, it mostly is free range. Set forth an entirely new system, or talk about a change to someone else’s.

To start with, I reccomend that we simplify the class structure.

There will be FOUR classes. Yes, you heard me, four. 4. Fighter, Rogue, Priest, and Mage. Every class will have high, medium, or low attack bonuses a’la 3rd edition (as it’s marginally simpler than including the Thief BAB from 1st and 2nd). Fighters high, wizard low, priest and rogue medium.

I’ve been thinking that saves are a little too easy to game and/or it might be better to have another one in there (Luck?). In most of our games, we wind up with the GM having to increase the spell DC’s and things because we rarely, if ever, fail on anything except a natural 1. Usually by level 7-8. We’re saving throw whores. Aside from which, it’s often nice to have a stat for random lucky things , which can simulate many heroic characters who always seem to get the short end of the stick (low), have things come their way (high), or just make their own way (average).

Continuing on, I see no reason not to use the traditional d10/d8/d6/d4 hit point arrangement. It’s classic and I likes it.

Obviously, spellcasters will… cast spells. The 3rd edition arrangement on attribute bonus = more spells/spell DC is neccessary if attributes still add into saving throws.

Now, for the fun stuff. When you first take a class, you choose your package. That is, for Fighter you can choose Champion (i.e., Paladin), Barbarian, Dark Knight, etc. This is how you get access to the specific abilities of your class. You just get one pick per level from your list for that package. There will also be a short general list for anyone to take. Presumably, the more powerful picks might require higher levels, but we’d have several new ones to choose from every level. However, this should top out at level 10. You can still take class levels and get new picks after that, but they shouldn’t have any tougher requirements.

The reasoning here is that this lets people multiclass but rewards consistency. You can learn any one thing in a class if you study it for a while, but you must really focus to get everything.

Now, you CAN get picks from other packages within your class. These cost extra. This is the price of “multi-classing”.

Apart from that, you take any combination of the four classes you like. If you want to be a Fighter 1, Rogue 3, Mage 7, Priest 4, go ahead. No penalty. You’re still not getting advantage from this because you’re not getting access to the more powerful picks. At the very first level, spellcasters get a lot of extra picks so they can choose what schools they have access to.

Finally, every class will have a Base Caster Level. Yes, Base Caster Level. This doesn’t give you any new spells or anything, but it does mean your old ones usually get better. Thus, you can take a few levels as a caster and hybrid it into your main class effectively.

This system has several advantages: it lets people whip up hybrids and make characters really easily, and with a lot less messing about with Prestige Classes and combing through esoteric books looking for stuff. You can also customize your character with a lot less fuss. No weird multivclass chains to avoid an xp penalty, no reliance.

There are still a number of things to think of, mostly about the picks. What abilities shoudl be basic and what should be picks - and of which package - is a big question.

Suggested Packages.

Fighter
Barbarian
Champion
Dark Knight
Martial Artist
Soldier

Rogue
Thief - traditional dungeon crawler
Pirate/Ninja* - backstabby/odd weapons guy (bombs, caltrops)
Traveller - lots of contacts
Scout - for ranger hybriding
Mountebank - for arcane trickster bybriding or nonmagical “magicians”

*Anyone have a good name suggestion. I picked Pirate/Ninja, because they were pretty similar as far as the classes presented here went. In short, this is the package for damage dealers.

Priest
Cleric - traditional smashy guy
Druid - take a wild guess (ba-dum ksssh!)
Shaman - “Spirits be witcha, mon”
Need some more here.
Wizards
Sorcerers - mastery of powers by will alone
Loremaster - knower of stuff/traditonal wizard types
Witch - curse masters
Necromancers - woot!

And I’m sure you’ve got a few ideas and I may get some more.

2

First of all, there is no Bard mentioned, so the system is in trouble right out of the gate.

Actually, classes do have a certain sentimental value, especially if they include bards, but it seems to me that the only reason you need classes at all is to determine the progression of BAB, Saves, Hit Points, ect. But the good people at Green Ronin have worked out that you can do all that with a point buy system, as with their Mutants and Masterminds game. You get a bunch of points, with caps based on the level of the campaign, and you design the mix of abilities you want to have. You level by getting more points and spending them.

3

I like it so far, though I’d include the bard as well and get rid of the “martial artist” (by which I take you to mean “unarmed monk archetype”) entirely.

I never thought the monk fit into the whole D&D swords and sorcery thing, IMHO.

4

You know what, this might not be popular, but I like Attacks of Opportunity. The problem isn’t with the confusion, it’s that it’s too easy to avoid them! The fighter-types need a way to disrupt spells of mage-types, and it’s almost impssible (and at even mid-level, utterly impossible) to do so.

So if we don’t have AoO, there must be some sort of system for spell disruption for mages. My personal big rule for AoO would be: NO five-foot step “adjustment” crap and make a casting-on-the-defensive Concentration roll a real number to hit.

5

Bards…
hmmm…
:smack:

I knew I forgot something.

Actually, a Bard works out to be a minor odd wizard/rogue build. Probably a Rogue (Traveller) / Wizard (Enchanter-specialist-Song Mage -Whatever)

Ah well, it’s hardly begun much less done.

I’ve also done something along thsoe lines. But this was sort of the simple and easy rules for easy play. Its meant to be more iconic-but-with-enough-flexibility-to-satisfy-most-people rather than infintiely versatile.

I do agree; it was more of a “this way it’s compatible thing.” I also think the monk doesn’t fit. But there’re enoyugh of them established in DnD and quasi-DnD settings that it’s sort of a lost cause in most games.

6

Dang, I wish I understood game design well enough to participate.

I will be watching your progress with interest, anyway. Try to accomodate as many different kinds of dice as possible.

What about character races? Just the classics to start with?

And what of psionics? Or a psychic-themed wizard package?

7

I would suggest that among the Priest packages are “specialist Cleric” packages for specific gods – better that a cleric of Thor be quite distinct from a cleric of Balder. That should fill out your Priest package list nicely, too.

Likewise, the Wizard packages could include other specialist variants – Illusionists, in particular, have been favorites since AD&D. And there should be a package focused on familiars, damnit. They’ve always been kinda naff in D&D, and one of the things that Races & Classes implied was that familiars won’t be in 4e right away, which irks. I want a familiar that isn’t just an ornament, and which doesn’t half-kill my PC if its offed. A familiar progression that advances with character level would fix things, methinks.

Why not add some multiclass packages, to handle the Bard and Paladin and such? You’d take a Priest/Fighter with the Paladin package for each, and presto! you’ve got a paladin. And maybe a Wizard/Rogue with Bard package.

One of the things I found while experimenting with 3.0/3.5 is that the multiclassing penalty is substantially fixed if you just make caster level = character level. The drawback of fewer spells from having multiclassed your caster class is enough to balance things – and characters with only a few caster class levels aren’t gimped at higher levels because the few spells they do have are too ineffectual.

8

Allow me to throw out a rather radical idea that would change the nature of many things but would simplify the system: dump hit points.

I don’t mean completely. The real problem I have is with the escalating totals which have only flimsy justifications. Instead I think retooling around a simple “per encounter” system would make things easier. Players could get a certain low number of hit points per encounter. If they lose them all then they are “knocked out” and can recover after the fight. Anyone who has been wounded too much loses a hit point from the maximum total per encounter until the character has had a real chance to recover.

For example, let’s say that fighter classes get ten HP per encounter. Our man in gets a slight whack for 1 HP from an orc. The next encounter he just starts at 10 HP again. If he gets into that one heavily and gets knocked down to 4 HP then when he gets to the next encounter he starts at 9 HP. If he loses all 9 then he’s knocked out until the group can recover after the encounter and he’s stuck at 8HP per encounter until he gets an extended rest period (something that couldn’t be done in the field).

The advantages for HP tracking mean that you can just use a die to keep track of current HP and then there’s one modifier to worry about. There’s no HP escalation so there’s no chance of falling from low earth orbit and surviving because they’re level 20. It makes things more player friendly because it removes the threat of being slaughtered at low levels unless the entire party gets wiped.

The other big advantage is that it removes the cleric as the heal bag. Too many D&D players think that the only thing the cleric should do is heal and if they dare try anything else then they are being played wrong. You can still have healer clerics this way but it removes the dependence on them. The power advantage of healing items as well is dramatically weakened by this system.

9

**Johnny Angel’s ** mentioned Mutants and Masterminds, and I think their powers system would be a good approach for spellcasting; rather than having a base list of spells, you can put points into general spell effects; say, you could buy 10 points worth of “does fire damage”. Then additional points for range extensions, duration, area of effect etc. It also lets you add on alternate spell effects that could plausibly be of the same spell for an additional point/points, rather than spending a whole new set of points on a similar spell. So instead of having to buy 10 points of your Fire Damage spell and 10 points of Light, you could get the 10 of Fire Damage and then for a couple of points extra tack on Light as a extra counted as worth 10 points. Makes for more plausible spellcasting, IMHO. The limitation usually is that you can’t use both at the same time, which makes sense if you’re going with one spell use. But it’s considerably more versatile.

10

I’d do away with the ‘default setting’, to stop comments like this.

Do it like the d20 Modern main book. Give brief rundowns of several potential settings, but don’t present any of them as The Setting.

Then sell setting books for the more detailed settings.

I’d also include some world-building suggestions - reminders of the sort of things to consider, rather than specific details.

11

I like narrowing down the number of core classes, but really, do we really need four? Seems to me that we could do with three.

Fighter
Expert
Adept

With “Expert” being the class that gives you middling BAB and HP (or whatever we replace HP with, I favor M&M’s damage save myself), but tons of skill points and access to abilities that aren’t magical, but don’t quite fit in under the Fighter’s mandate. Same as your Rogue, really, but the name more immediately says that this is also where social characters and other not necessarily swashbuckly skill monkeys go to.

Adept of course is “magic user”, with all flavors of divine and arcane magic really just being sub-build within. I don’t see the need to separate out “Priests”. Just have them take a level or two of a Fighter build if they want the classic cleric wading into the front lines, mace in hand.

Now, what are we doing about races? I’d include all the classics but not impose any mechanical differences on them. Treat them like they’re just different cultures/ethnicities, just with more extreme phenotypic variation than we’re accustomed to. Sure, Dwarves tend to be more sturdy and strong and Elves more graceful and beautiful, but let the player show that in how they build the character.

12

Lightray, I admire the idea of Priests of various gods as their package; that is a bit setting spedific, so I’d probably include a number of classic godly themes (rulership/fields and harests/storms and lightning/warfare) and different settings couldadd tin their own. Druids can then just be “nature” priests of a different sort, and we can even toss in ancestor worship and so forth. Pantheists, who don’t discriminate amongst the gods, can have a seperate package list of generic picks all their own.

And I will probably make Fighters and Rogues have some penalty on their caster level, but not too much. I think the spell syystem needs reiviosn so that Caster level is much more important. It can probably substitute for spell level in a lot of cases: Why not replace the current saving trhow with you caster level, for example? That will distinguishes low-level spells by their internal weakness, not that the enemy just ignores the save.

Menocchio, I think you definitely have a point. Still, I would like to keep the divine and arcane seperated, because they cast spells a hair differently and because the grand list of packages if pretty distinct in theme even if they are all casters.

Likewise, it is a sort of a tradition that Clerics fight and Wizards don’t. But I do see where you are coming from and I gave it serius thought.

On Skills

One issue with D20 skills was that, at low levels the d20 roll overhwelmed any skill you had, and at high levels the d20 roll was meaningless. I’m suggesting the following revisions. First, your maximum skills points is equal to your character level. Second, instead of d20 you roll 3d6. This cuts out the extremes much more, and since the average roll will be in the 9-11 range MUCH more often, it will make the skill system much more reliable for the player.

Likewisemost of the skills need revision and cleaning up. In 3rd ed you could, for example, build a party of bards who walked around and made all the evil creatures of the world your fanatic followers. It wasn’t too hard, either.

13

Heck, in AD&D I actually played in a game that was a party of bards walking around making everyone our fanatic followers. Even easier, then. (to charm everything; not to become a bard, obviously).

14

I can see the point in drawing a hard line between divine and arcane magic, although perhaps I’d like to see that line just a little bit harder than it’s been in previous editions (both Wizards and Clerics have to spend daily prep time for example, Sorcerers do not). Perhaps that can be done through the details of the spell lists. But I wonder why divine casters must also be semi-proficient fighters. The option must exist for tradition’s sake, I agree, but what’s wrong with a physically frail but spiritually mighty priest in cloth robes calling down the might of his god?

I hate to say it, but it works for World of Warcraft.

15

I don’t know what you kids are talking about when you go on about Attacks of Opportunity and Feats and such. In my day we had the Dungeon Master’s Guide, the Monster Manual, and the Player’s Handbook. And we liked it that way!

However, I would like to see Clerics’ abilities be less like Magic Users. Specifically, I would like to see Clerics have a table of abilities–maybe Heal, Bless, Curse, Raise Dead, Bless Food, Divine Guidance, and Miracle. Each would have a percent chance of success, and an effect, which is level-dependent. Effect of Miracle would be completely GM-dependent. A Cleric could attempt to perform any of these any number of times per day. If a Cleric failed a roll three times running, or failed a roll to benefit a particular person three times running, he/she would conclude that he/she was sinful, or the other person was sinful, and needed to atone before any further prayers would be attempted.

The D&D Cleric is heavily inspired by Roman Catholic clergy in the Middle Ages, and I think this mechanic would move a little closer to that. I think the “religions” in most D&D settings are terrible (and boring) and do not resemble any real-world religions at all.

16

Young whippersnappers! In my day we had little brown books, and your race was your class. And we liked it that way.

You’d better not be on my lawn, you.

Anyway, the archetypical D&D cleric is Archbishop Turpin. Hence the warrior-priest, no-pointy-weapons tropes of D&D. That doesn’t seem to be the direction that Smiling Bandit wants to go, since his Priest examples are “Cleric, Druid, Shaman.” D&D’s weird henotheism may be terrible (and often boring in execution), but it’s become one of the things that defines the “D&D genre”.

But as 1 of 4 base classes, the Priest could definately use some further defining – is it intended mainly as the healy guy? 'Cause druids have been subpar healers, and shamans don’t seem to fit the medic role, either. Turn Undead, likewise, doesn’t necessarily fit with either of those roles.

The Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard have much more defined roles. You always know that a Fighter will hit something, a Rogue will steal something, and a Wizard will blast something.

17

The problem with replacing a d20 roll with a 3d6 roll is that you’ve reduced the granularity of your distribution. The d20 gives you 20 values, the 3d6 only 16. That’s throwing away 20% of your range. And since the top and bottom values of the 3d6 are so rare you actually only have about half as many useful outcomes.

Plus, it’s usually easier to balance systems that use linear probability distributions. If you’re worried that extreme results are happening too often, you should switch to a random number system with finer granularity (like percentile dice) and adjust the criteria for success and failure.

18

I really like this idea, and a lot of it could perhaps be informed by the 3.0 Players’ Options books. However, this is just BEGGING for min/maxing and nasty combinations. There are a lot of people out there who troll through the books to figure out the nastiest combination of one level each in a dozen different prestige classes to have an assassin that does around 200 damage with single crossbow bolt as it is. This would open things up even more.

The idea of leaving hit points behind has some serious potential. As it is now, if the evil overlord has kidnapped the damsel and, while he is gloating over the captured and helpless PCs that were sent to rescue her, the damsel pulls out a knife she had hidden in her garter and holds it to his throat he would do well to just ignore her and let her cut away. d4 damage (probably with a minus one or so due to strength)? Pishaw, he has 120 hp. (And no, in this example the evil overlord would not be considered helpless, so no coup de grace, though that would hardly matter either.)

It would be something if there was an actual risk that any particular attack could take you out. Of course, there would have to be some kind of method of tempering it so that the laws of probability did not mean that the whole party gets wiped out by their third encounter or so.

19

I would like to contribute to this if I can. It sounds like fun.

First, may I suggest making this project more on the simple side. I’m sure we can all come up with great classes, spells, spell systems, NPC generators, etc. But where would that really leave us. With a bunch of cool stuff and no nice, efficient, simple way to implement it.

I like the idea of three “classes” because it is more simple then four. Let the three groups set the guide lines and build from there.

I picture an upside down triangle. Start off with a easy, scaleable ruleset (class set, spell set, what ever) and build from there. That way it works from the get-go and gives this project a chance to get some real world play.

20

Heck, if you’re going down to three classes, why not…one? Hero. And then throw out those complicated levels and replace it with a point system that the character can use to buy attributes and skills and spells and perks and advantages…

Why is everyone looking at me?