101.

Hermetic spells are more or less done. 20 1st and 2nd, 18 3rd and 4th, 16 5th and 6th, 14 7th and 8th.

Lots more beyond that. It's posted.

-Just saying.

So good

Alligator Dimension is a far, far better spell than anything else I've seen.

It's a thing of beauty.

Oh yeah?

Time waits for no man
Seventeen alligators
Don't forget to write

Alligator Dimension, 6th: Astromancy
This spell sends one target creature to a small alternate dimension populated by 17 alligators. The affected creature cannot escape. However, mail is picked up and/or delivered every Tuesday.


Paul: The compass just turns in the direction. As it doesn't give information on distance, it doesn't do as much as locate object. Still, you have a point. -Maybe I'll make a max range of 100 miles or so. As for the +3, it just turns in the direction, it doesn't move in that direction. Thus, the arrow would correct itself somewhat in flight, but it's not a heat-seeking missile.

The spell writes itself

Inspired by this haiku:

You are a loser
Like children laughing at play
Comet rendezvous


Comet rendezvous
Astromancy, 7th circle

Must be a clear night, outdoors. Summons a meteorite to smash Leopold, unerringly, who takes 9d12.

depends on how you judge.

I think it loses as a 1st level spell. Don't get me wrong it's a better spell, just not what I think of for 1st lvl. words like despite the distance....unerringly..do they get a save..? This is like locate object and locate person combined and made 1st level with a compass....which it's nice to have foci, but I think as a 1st level spell it has questionable qualities. Why only a +3 to hit...

So as to the what's up.....Nael sit's back and smokes his cigar and says...
"not much, wish I had your DM"

Leopold says "What up now, Nael?!"

I think this Hedge spell beats Nael's Trace:

Leopold’s Compass, 1st
When cast upon a small stick, arrow, needle or similar object, Leopold’s compass will cause the enchanted rod to point in the direction of one object or creature the caster has previously seen. Despite the distance of the object or creature, if free to move, Leopold’s compass will unerringly swing in its direction.

Leopold’s compass spell may not enchant any object greater than 1 lb. in weight.

Note: If cast upon an arrow or crossbow bolt, Leopold’s compass will impart a +3 bonus ‘to hit’ when the missile is fired at the targeted creature or object. However, if the enchanted missile is fired at another object or creature, a -6 ‘to hit’ modifier is applied.

p

It was the "players option" line of books part of second edition, or so says the wiki.....

Keepin' on keepin' on.

I'm uploading v3.6 tonight. Many more spells. I am almost done with Hermetic.

Anyway, I've found an attribute solution that can make us both happy, Rob. It's a purchase system with a min 4 and max of 16, or a 4d4 option. -The points work out nice.

Strength is much better now. -It gives you a straight up armor use modifier.

Spells are going to be earned 1 plus an additional each time you buy a higher circle. In actuality, it's not a much different rate than 1ed D&D. -At higher levels, it's better. To get more spells beyond the last circle, it's that circle's cost again for one of each.

I think the summoning spells will need to be adjusted after I finish the monster section.

Huh.

I hadn't heard. -I'll look it up. I am still plugging away.

Players Choice

Hey, did you know that TSR released their own version of a skillpoint system for D&D? It's around the same time as 2nd E I think, called "Players Choice". You've got 35 skillpoints to buy shit like armor use, magic abilities, etc.

Might want to pick it up.

I dig this spell:

Antithesis 8th Circle
When cast upon a creature, the antithesis spell creates one exact copy of that creature within the spell’s range. The singular goal of this newly created anti-creature is the destruction of its original. Thus, were a wizard to cast antithesis upon a character, an exact copy of that character, equipment and all, would appear and immediately set forth to destroy its natural counterpart.

The antithesis creature will remain until it or the original creature is destroyed. Upon either event, the antithesis creature and all of its equipment will simply disappear.

Note: The copy created by the antithesis spell is in the exact physical and mental state as the original. Thus, were the original creature injured or depleted in spell power, the antithesis would also be compromised to the same extent.

The Pied Piper is a pretty fucked up story, reallly

Whenever I read that 'follow the white star' line, I think of David Bowie or the long-haired dude from Cheap Trick, in a white or silver jumpsuit, skipping down the lane stealing your children a la the Pied Piper of Hamlin.

Really, be enlightened, man.

Sick of fantasy?

Here we go again
For unicorns and fairies
Follow the white star

Honestly, I think the phrases are at a near-perfect mix:

From serene to danger
Where is that smell coming from?
That wasn't yogurt

Choose Your Own Adventure (tm): Petting Zoo Rendezvous

It's like the world's shortest, worst 'Choose Your Own Adventure'.

...

Or if you prefer, here's a new one:

Rasputin hand-job
Only I can show you it
Be enlightened, man

I can't believe some authors need 1000 pages to tell a story, as these haikus offer a world of riches in just three lines, 17 syllables.

?!

Don't do it!

Yet another option

Here's a female goat
And I sit here wondering
The path before you

Another spell earning option.

You get a spell when you buy the circle. Beyond that, you can buy them with skill points, 1 per circle of the spell, to a max of 10. The only problem with this, is that everyone's going to immediately have 10 1st circle spells. -It might also be too expensive.

As mentioned, my other suggestion is 1 per circle when you buy the next circle. After the max circle, it costs the max to continue to do so. -I think I like this better.

Making everyone happy.

I can't do it. It's impossible. Everyone is going to have their idea of the perfect system, and no two will be the same. At best, we can all look at a system and say: "Yeah, I'd play that."

D&D has some good things, and those I am trying to keep. It's fast and playable. As much as weapon-dependent types of damage might be interesting, or make sense, I think they will just bog things down.

We tried spell points a couple of times and they just didn't work. A finger of death might slide at 1st, but wish or meteor swarm would not. I think the D&D spell system works rather well. We've enjoyed it with slight modifications.

As for skill caps, they need to exist. -Either as hard caps or as unaffordable asyptotes. I that was one of the things I liked least about Rob's skill system. (Ed too.) Just let a character become a Mozart, Chopin, Michael Jordan, or Tiger Woods and let them start working on some new skills. Modifiers let the DM work with the difficulty. -You are not going to find a golf player measureably better than Tiger Woods, and yet, Tiger is not going to automatically make a 60 foot put. -Give the guy props for working so hard at golf and let him learn something else. In my mind, olympic medalists all have 19's and 20's. In many ways, it just comes down to whether or not the athelete was having a good or bad day. Tiger woods is not better now than he was 6 years ago. He is not going to be any better 6 years from now either. The best he can do is get another skill that can augment his golf skill by some small amount (maybe "read green" or "sense wind").

36 points is a bargain when it buys you 8 more spells per day.

Also, this system hardly has levels. they almost don't exist. -They only define when skill points are earned, and you get a health point. Spells, abilities, proficiencies etc. are not level dependent.

Attributes are now 1 skill point x (score - 5) to buy. Thus 5-6 costs 1 point, 9-10 costs 5 points, 15-16 costs 11 points, etc. Like all abilities, you can only buy one level up at creation. It's affordable, but not silly cheap.

I am going to upload out v3.5 tonight. Have a look.

Know this: I am not going to totally revamp this thing now. Although this talk is confusing, what I've got on paper is getting pretty close to a good system. It's actually approaching what I want: A system that feels familiar, but makes more sense and allows for more player opportunities. You guys have helped a lot. And I think it is a better product because of it.

I am at page 78 or something now with 8pt font. If it doesn't seem worth your while without being totally rebuilt, be my guest and make your own. (Just a word of caution, a lot of ideas seem great until your two-thirds done and you find that two of them don't mesh so well.)

On the other hand, if you want to help me continue to polish this up on the last stretch so I can flush it out with monsters and magic, I'd appreciate it. If so, these are the issues I currently want to solve:

1) How do earn new spells/day (repetiore).

I last suggested casters get 1 spell in each circle they have each time they buy a new circle. After the max circle, it's the last circles cost to continue to do so.

2) Is agility still too good, and if so, how to fix it?

I last addressed this by making strength more worthwhile. I stretched out damage modifiers and made strength reduce the armor dodge modifier.

Paul

I really like a system where you have to buy all of your advances....IE pay for hp and saves.

What are levels.....? Do you really want them...?

The DiD Factory

strength could change the chances of scoring a critical....that would make it nice.

In fact I like the idea of addressing some of the stat stuff you guys talked about by thinking of weapons, armor, strength, endurance and agility.

I like the idea of a bow not really doing much damage to HP, but being able on a critical to do a lot of END damage.

so like 1-3 hp, on a critical 1-4 end. Str could modify the chance of the critical as could range.

I like the idea of clubs doing a fair amount of hp damage say 1-6 but only really being able to do 1-2 on a crit.

The whole dynamic you've been using has too much to do with D&D, and if you don't actually want this to be a d20 "expansion" or Companion, drop their mistakes.

Drop spells per circle and go to spell points, don't make people buy circles, make them buy spellpoints, give guidelines for what a certain number of spellpoints can do. If someone can cast finger of death at first level and that is all they can do.....It's nor really that much different from getting a guy with a 2 handed sword in your face. I like that thinking of hp and criticals etc gives a 1st level guy a chance to stand up shoot blaphegor pheng and kill him.

I really have a lot of ideas about this stuff, this just isn't the forum for me to really share.

Paul

some things to think about if you want to.

Would you rather have a shield or Leather armor fighting a guy who has a club?

Would you worry more about getting hit by a guy in platemail or a guy in leather?

Should magic missile type spells do more damage to people who have more HP? I like the idea of 1st level damage blast etc spells attacking End directly....

Having a difference between you hp when you are flat footed as it were, and when you are standing there ready to rumble. Maybe armor shouldn't reduce damage done, but rather increase you end when in melee. It could even make you easier to hit......seems like a big change that would require a lot of thinking.

I like the idea of Critical Damage being a really big deal. Maybe armor could lower the chance of criticals, that makes sense. Guys in plate are, in a way, either hiding on a battlefield, or they are a tower of death.

blah blah.

Paul

Indeed I meant to post that here, and when I went looking for it....
It was gone!!

Ok I just read all the stuff below.....
I mostly agree with Rob, just to sum it up briefly.

I think 36 points is too much for anything to cost.

I do think point buy is the best for stats....but people really do like rolling.
I think they like rolling because the want the chance at a guy who is better, or in rare cases I think they actually will try to let the dice help them craft a character. I do that. I come up with a character idea, then I roll the dice and see if I can play the guy I was thinking of with those stats. If I can't then I can save the character idea, or see if I canchange it so that it works with what I've rolled.

Here are some questions....

Why not have the attribute be the start of the % based skill? That way starting characters all have a lot of shitty skills. You could set some skills aside as trained only, meaning you can't roll Demonology, but you can roll jump.

I need to print out your system to see where it stands. I would be very worried about what Rob said with Agility. I almost agree with him about combat, but hey I've killed my party a bit too much lately.

Stat caps.

I don't think you understood my meaning. If Slath wanted to make a 1st level spell and he had 65% spellcraft, you'd give him a straight roll. Then when he had a 150% spellcraft and wanted to make that same 1st level spell, you'd give him a -80%. -That's not an exact example, it's just similar to what happened. Buying higher and higher didn't always help with the easy stuff.

I am just saying the same task should always require the same level of difficulty. -They shouldn't slide relative to your new skill level.

Paul

I thinkPaul meant to post this here:

The DiD Factory: " Mayor Jim was supposed to escape and come back to haunt them. Etc. Only naive players get joy from GM/storyline thwarting; it's a rare PC who can thwart and then come up with something on their own, and usually means that the player has GMed a lot before. But that's a tangent.)"

It's about the DM having a plan for if Jim gets away, and if Jim doesn't. That way the dice can decide. If Jim is going to get away the the players are just manipulated and the game is a sham. People falling off cliffs and living will seriously piss of the PCs and rightfully so. It the same as playing chess and having someone put a piece that has been taken and putting it back on the board. You can't call that game very fair. Now if players consent to this well, that is different. Consent is how games can be played "fairly".

blah blah.

Something like this?

How about every time you buy a circle, you get 1 spell in each of your other circles? When you buy 3rd, you have three 1st, two 2nd, one 3rd. -Not including bonus spells.

The only problem is what to do at 8th circle. 8th is 36 skill pts. Maybe every 36 points thereafter fills each circle with one more spell.

For hedge and ritual, it would be 25 points.

Seems fair. However, it still makes one want to buy circles fast. But it's not so desperate as it's not level-based. What do you think?

All day workin', Masta got me tweaking...

Maybe buying abilities should be a bit cheaper.

I think I've got some strength candy: Strength now can reduce the dodge penalty due to armor. Tricky, eh? It makes sense. -A strong guy can wear his plate mail well. It can also go the other way. That should make fighters think again about a low strength.

I also stretched out the strength damage modifiers some.

As for the spell circle thing, I am thinking on it. I think the circles are the right cost as it is. I agree a carrot is better than a stick at this point. Maybe the aquisition of spells needs to be tweaked. Hmm.

Eh

Eh, okay, let's just run with that choosing system for now. In practice, as I recall from the 1E days, you just roll guys up until you get a guy with great stats and go with him in any case.

Yeah, high stats is 1/2 of the real problem. The other half is the arbitrary and unbalanced modifiers associated with having high stats. You still gotta work on balancing END vs STR vs AGIL. Why? Otherwise, everyone plays super-AGIL characters, just to survive.

At this point, I think I sort of view that as your problem, which I'll happily to playtest and bitch about. But the core difference in the mechanics of the system is AC = AGIL and HP = END, which is, as I remember, direct from Chickens. That's what I've been seeing this DiDFactory system as, really: a hybrid of your game Chickens plus my skill system. Certainly that's exactly what it started out as. (Although if memory serves me right, Chickens had CHA as a stat too.)

And AC = AGIL is basically the core problem too. It's nice, but everything (or, the effects of END and STR) needs to revolve around that.

...

Raising stat scores in the system is possible but unfeasible. It's just not worth the skillpts.

...

Next, the question of 'is Roger Bacon interesting' is irrelevant and ill-posed.

1) The question of how interesting a character is, is only meaningful in the scope of an actual game. He could be the most interesting PC you've ever seen; that's only determined by player actions.

2) But after years of gaming, I've come to the conclusion that combat is a necessary evil. It's fun, sure, but 'gaming' and 'role-playing' is what's in between the invidual combats. For that reason, characters who can get shit done and kick ass in combat are the most important and interesting, because it's exactly these characters who allow the party to progress along the story and actually exert change in the world. Consider the relative campaign impact of Slath vs. Jimmy Swill. Slath may have looked boring on the page, but it was Slath who went down in the history books. Jimmy Swill just quit (only to become a major player as it were, as an NPC). (But this is somewhat tangential and game specific. My main point- that combat is what happens in-between plot points- is the real issue here.) Jimmy Swill may have been fun when the stakes were zero, but once the campaign actually kicked into gear, he wasn't a contender.

3) More importantly, Roger Bacon is an interesting character in that he tested the system. Jimmy Swill and Morgan don't really poke holes in the system and ask what's broken. In fact, Jimmy's ambidexterity is a clear example of you missing a substantial design flaw. Two-weapon fighting is always problematic; is it always strictly better than having a shield? In D&D, yes. So how can we balance it out?

That's the point of even making characters now, yes? Not to sit around and play SkillChickens, but to test for flaws in char design. I wanted, not to make a wacky dude like Jimmy Swill, but to see what Paladins, Fighter Tanks, Thieves and Mages just look like in DiDF. They look unbalanced, i.e., unfair, i.e., unfun.

A bit of unbalance can be fun, sometimes- it's driven a lot of DiD (really just a riff on the original lack of balance in 1E) and the card game MegaWizards, but it's not suitable for a serious system, which is what we're going for here. Uh, right?

4) 'Interesting' is a question of flavor, which is proper for skill and spell names, but not for system mechanics. It's essential that a system be fast and balanced. If it is, I think it can't help but be interesting. Unbalanced and slow systems are uninteresting, as they're easy to design and unfun to play. If everyone has low hp and high AGIL, the game is uninteresting, because it's just gambling... whoever rolls the 17 first (or whatever) is going to win.

...

Re: spell advancement and mages being boring. Making skill and ability costs more expensive is a kludge that doesn't solve the ultimate problem. If your mechanic says 'whenever you get a spell circle, that's when you start to accrue spell slots' means that there's a huge advantage to getting circles as early as you can. Making circles more expensive to obtain doesn't solve that problem, it just makes mages even weaker relative to non-mages. A better solution is to have so many potential skill and prof choices that you don't know what to do with your skillpts. I think we want positive controls on character diversity rather than negative controls, if you get me.

...

Finally, on skills and checks being relativistic and messy. A fundamental feature of all of my games, and every game I've played, is 'Red Queen' scaling. Meaning that at every stage, it's equally hard to do the hardest thing that could be expected of characters of that status. I.e., the big boss for 1st level chars should be as hard to defeat as the big boss for 10th level chars.

You guys always bitched about this- that when your guys got to be powerful, I never threw a few goblins at you and let you show off your new skills. Every combat was just as bloody and involved lots of unconsciousness.

But that's the drama. It might be fun to have one low level encounter when you're high level, but lots of them are a time waste. A 1st level thief should have a rough but possible time of it, breaking into a bakery and stealing a recipe. A 10th level thief should be able to do that no problem, but WTF kind of game would that be? (It'd be DiD.) The 10th level thief should be trying to break into the castle and get the crown jewels. Or some such. I.e., even though the 10th lvl thiefs skills are much higher, there's still an equal element of danger and drama, i.e., roughly a 1/3 chance of pulling it off no sweat, 1/3 in some trouble, and 1/3 of it going to hell.

And in the end, it's really the most fun when it's the final 1/3rd.

That's why I think most games end when chars reach their ultimate potential- because there's nothing more to achieve, which is what brings many people back to the RPG table time and time again. Look at KT constantly asking when he can train, and making his guy based around fast advancement. Imagine playing without levels or any kind of skill advancement. There's some fun to be had, but no campaign there. It's the same scenario with skill and stat caps.

The real problem.

I did some thinking, and I came to this conclusion, our real problem is with super high stats. Either through rolling or choosing.

If we do what I suggested below, it solves the problem. 1st level guys just don't have them. It kind of makes sense too. It also gives them something to work for. Also, everyone is in the same boat. -I think that addresses your main concern.

solved.

Ok, this is it:

5 points in each stat. 35 to spend:

6-11: 1 for 1.
12-14: 2 for 1.
15-17: 3 for 1.
18-20: Not available.

I like this. Choose away.

It's my system and I'll roll if I want to.

Your last argument doesn't hold Mark. A 1st level guy with a 20 isn't the best or smartest or whatever. 'Best' is defined in terms of skills. Your stats are only your potential to eventually be best. A 5th level guy with average stats can still kick the ass of a 1st level guy with END 20.(That's one thing I kind of don't like about the system, really, is that your ultimate potential is defined by your initial stat choices. Another 1E error. You seem to be hitting a lot of 1E mistakes, in my eyes.)

A 20 at the start makes a hell of a lot of difference. -Consider a 20 agility. 5% chance to hit you? Pick up a shield and it's Dodge of 21? That's more than potential. Call it what you like, a 20 is the highest possible.

I think you are totally missing where I am coming from: Starting characters should have ok stats and skills, over time they can improve these both. They aren't ultimately defined by them.

Choosing ultimately is the more fair system, because it equalizes PCs at the start, which is absolutely essential for balance. There's a good reason why the first gen RPGs used rolling, and almost all subsequent systems dropped it in favor of choosing.

Maybe it's ultimately fair, but fair doesn't equal good or interesting. Sorry, but I don't think Roger Bacon is interesting. Actually, I would really rather not play in a Roger bacon kind of game.

Also, what do you mean by balanced? If we really wanted complete balance, we could just have all mundanes, and all humans, and all 10s for stats. It isn't all about balance. I don't play the game for balance. Sure balance matters, but balance isn't the only thing that makes it fun.

Actually, it's a problem of any system where you set hard 'caps' on skills or ability scores, and where only the most extreme stats give you any bonuses.

In the current system, there's no difference between a fighter with a 9 STR and one with a 13 STR. (But there's a considerable difference between a guy with a 10 AGIL and a 12 AGIL.)

It's another thing 3E did right: whenver stats go up by 2, you get another +1 bonus, so a 13 STR is better than 11, and 15 is even better. Also, there are no caps, but starting stats are limited to the typical range.

I did adjust strength some. And, stats can be raised. Still all scores need either a cap or an asymptote, otherwise, the scale is meaningless. That was one problem with our old skill system. Sometimes we needed 200% in a skill. Then, when we tried something easier, we would need to roll 2 or 3 times higher than we would have needed to at low levels. It just got relativistic and messy.

We can keep arguing about Choose vs Roll all along. But rolling I think makes the problem worse, because clearly, if someone rolls exceptionally poorly, the GM won't make them keep their guy, or their guy will just die. "Okay, my 6 AGIL, 8 END 1st level fighter rushes into melee. Can I roll a new guy yet?" But if you roll great, you get that 1/200 '20', you're fuckin' magic. Maybe you don't recall Ben Gunsberg's 18/00 fighter. That was the first straw to making Justin Jaymes quit gaming- his guys were useless compared to Ben's randomly rolled tanks. I think rolling makes the problem of stats worse in the end. The problem isn't: how good are these guys relative to the world- the problem is: how good are the individual PCs relative to each other.

I still don't think you've rolled 5d4. You've got 3 characters that are 'fucking magic'. Roll some characters. I've tried your way. I have really seriously considered it. Try mine.

No weapon speed. No one uses it.

I am not making a 3E supplement. I don't want to.

That's also why I am discussing all aspects of the game.

I adjusted the off-hand weapon penalties. Now ambidextrousness is better. Also, when you can't just give yourself a super high dex at the start, it actually does matter.

I'll look at the running proficiency again, maybe tame it. Still, if you can't start with a 20 endurance...

Maybe we just have different ideas of what makes a game fun. I don't think a game that has the Roger Bacon, Griminien, or John Applegate is fun. These guys are Big Ben. -I'd rather just play chickens.

If you really really like choosing, maybe I'll just tame it more. I'll make 19's and 20's unchooseable. -It just seems lame to me.

Just roll some d4's dammit. Do it on the blogroller. Make 20 characters. Just try it.

Half circle

Your last argument doesn't hold Mark. A 1st level guy with a 20 isn't the best or smartest or whatever. 'Best' is defined in terms of skills. Your stats are only your potential to eventually be best. A 5th level guy with average stats can still kick the ass of a 1st level guy with END 20.(That's one thing I kind of don't like about the system, really, is that your ultimate potential is defined by your initial stat choices. Another 1E error. You seem to be hitting a lot of 1E mistakes, in my eyes.)

...

This isn't a problem to be solved by 'rolling' instead of 'choosing', Mark.

Choosing ultimately is the more fair system, because it equalizes PCs at the start, which is absolutely essential for balance. There's a good reason why the first gen RPGs used rolling, and almost all subsequent systems dropped it in favor of choosing.

Actually, it's a problem of any system where you set hard 'caps' on skills or ability scores, and where only the most extreme stats give you any bonuses.

In the current system, there's no difference between a fighter with a 9 STR and one with a 13 STR. (But there's a considerable difference between a guy with a 10 AGIL and a 12 AGIL.)

It's another thing 3E did right: whenver stats go up by 2, you get another +1 bonus, so a 13 STR is better than 11, and 15 is even better. Also, there are no caps, but starting stats are limited to the typical range.

...

At first blush, it's your bias vs. mine. You prefer rolling and I prefer choosing. But if you look at the evolution of game design, you'll see most people have switched over to choosing. (Those that still roll are either trying for 'old-school' feel, or are just poorly designed; then again, the 'old-school' was poorly designed, so it's sort of the same thing.)

We can keep arguing about Choose vs Roll all along. But rolling I think makes the problem worse, because clearly, if someone rolls exceptionally poorly, the GM won't make them keep their guy, or their guy will just die. "Okay, my 6 AGIL, 8 END 1st level fighter rushes into melee. Can I roll a new guy yet?" But if you roll great, you get that 1/200 '20', you're fuckin' magic. Maybe you don't recall Ben Gunsberg's 18/00 fighter. That was the first straw to making Justin Jaymes quit gaming- his guys were useless compared to Ben's randomly rolled tanks. I think rolling makes the problem of stats worse in the end. The problem isn't: how good are these guys relative to the world- the problem is: how good are the individual PCs relative to each other.

So if you agree that eliminating choosing doesn't solve the problem itself, there are some hard problems to be solved:

1) The low hp increase rate, and high cost of buying hp, makes END too good.
2) AGI, STR, and END aren't balanced out... AGIL is best, then END, and STR is basically useless.
3) Ability score caps are sort of silly, in a world of mindflayers, giants, and avatars. Whatever we decide will be the max starting STR, shouldn't a titan just be a ton stronger? Or an angel be more charismatic?

...

Okay, so maybe make weapon damage more a function of STR.

...

Other things:

1E D&D actually did have weapon speed, to balance out casting times. Polearms and TH swords were like 10, and a fist was 1. (In segments to use, I think.) Different weapons also had adjusted bonuses or penalties to hit depending on the armor type of the target (e.g., a fist is worse off against platemail than a bec-de-corbin). Knew I wasn't crazy to suggest it. Then again, we never played with either of those rules, and in subsequent editions, they were dropped. In 2E, the weapon-vs-armor type was simplified to blunt/edged/piercing, and in 3E it was dropped entirely (although there are optional rules).

...

So, really, this is why way back in the beginning of all this, I suggested keeping the d20 system (the core mechanics and stats of 3E) and just dropping classes, and redesigning them in terms of feats and skills (which more or less map onto your abilities and proficiencies). Because systemically, 3E is still faster and more balanced than what we've got here. The fun part, the thing I like better here, is in the specific skills, feats, and spells we're allowing. Discussion of WIS and CHA, and rules for swimming and night vision are totally boring.

You can do the 'DEX is AC' and 'low HP' thing just as well in 3E.

...

15 pts for ambidex is still worthless. 10, maybe. Actually, no. I might take it for 5 skillpts. If I was making a two-weapon fighter, I'd just take high AGIL and not worry about the -1. One extra attack is much better. Fuck, in making a fighter, I'd take high AGIL anyway.

...

Running really is the champion skill. GM a campaign. PCs and NPCs run all the time, after each other or away from each other. Recurring villains depend on running. PC survival depends on running. Mobility in combat is also extremely advantageous. A PC with a high running skill can completely thwart whatever story the GM has, just by running away from the rest of the party. (Supposed to be captured by the guards and have a prison adventure but whoops, one PC got away. Mayor Jim was supposed to escape and come back to haunt them. Etc. Only naive players get joy from GM/storyline thwarting; it's a rare PC who can thwart and then come up with something on their own, and usually means that the player has GMed a lot before. But that's a tangent.)

Addendum

Just a thought, why should a 1st level character be able to be the strongest, smartest, or toughest person in the world? Shouldn't that come much later?

BTW, by the numbers, less that 1 in 200 characters will have a 20 by the rolling method. You had 1 in 3. These are two totally different games.

Not too bad, for a powergamer.

Well, I need to look over them some more, but at first glance, no one is too broken.

This does reinforce my belief that choosing stats is not a good thing, however. -It just encourages powergaming. I think I am going to make choosing the optional rule.

You shouldn't be able to buy 2nd circle when you start. Just like ability levels. -I need to clarify that.

Maybe strength needs a little help.

Ambidex should be 15 points. However, you are considering these things, like running, and agility where you can just choose your stats up to 20. -That really skews things.

Two of you six characters have 20's one has a 19, and two have 17s. I just rolled 5d4 60 times (twelve characters), and got three 17's and one 18. No 19's, no 20's. -It's a totally different game.

The skills are based upon the idea that 20's are insanely rare. You are right, why buy dodge or health when you can just give yourself a really high stat? However, if you roll stats, and they are based upon a bell curve, it becomes an issue.

I'll fix some 2 for 3 skills. They are annoying. Languages can be cheaper.

Running might be great against NPCs, but not so much against most creatures. Also, when you can't just choose to have the maximum human endurance possible at 1st level...

Seriously, I am thinking about just removing the choosing stat thing all together. This is a roleplaying game. The system is made to support a roleplaying game. It's not Mechwarriors. I hate to try to tweak the game again and again to prevent powergaming when you start off with a powergaming approach. -Choosing stats is either too shifted towards powergaming, or its too regulated to be meaningful.

I don't want to regulate everything just because some kid can make a sweet fighter with a 20 endurance.

BTW, here are six freshly rolled characters:

1: 13, 16, 12, 12, 14
2: 13, 8, 7, 14, 14
3: 12, 12, 13, 12, 12
4: 13, 7, 14, 12, 13
5: 10, 10, 14, 10, 10
6: 14, 11, 9, 7, 12

Those are the kind of starting stats I based the system upon. -None of those three 20's characters you were concerned about. Roll some up and get a feel for it.

Oh, I recall spending ability points on Jimmy's proficiencies as well. I'll check them again, though.

Jimmy swill didn't spend his skillpts well

Okay, I made some guys. They're in the email. Check 'em out.

After going through all that...

1) Fighters are absolutely kick ass. But there's no reason for a fighter to have a high STR, there's really nothing to be gained that a few skillpts won't solve. On the other hand, AGIL is critical. END is also really, really good to have so high that you get bonus pts. I didn't take advantage of these things outside the straight fighter, but maybe I should have.

Anyway, we need to make STR more important somehow.

2) Buying dodge and health. I almost never did it. I did a little, but because I felt I 'ought' to. Always better things to do with the skillpoints. It's 100% better to start with low STR and high END and AGIL, and use the skillpts to buy extra attacks and weapon mast. Just get a +1 bonus from END, that's a free 6 ability points each level. END 20 gives 18 free ability points, essentially. Roger Bacon fucking rocks. He's 6th level and can take yer damn Power Word Kill.

Buying a couple points of health at high levels just seems like a waste... when fighters are dolling out tons of damage, does it matter if I have 14 instead of 12 hp? Nope.

3) Ambidex is the most useless ability. It's expensive, and has nothing to do with AGIL. Low AGIL characters won't be fighting anyway, and high AGIL characters already have mild penalties to 2-weap fighting. No reason not to put those skillpts towards Multi-Attack, which is a melee guy's most important ability, bar none. Or for a few skillpts more, you might as well by magic potential or something.

Uh, why did Jimmy Swill even buy it? He spent 20 precious skillpts to get a +2 to hit with a small off-hand weapon you can only swing w/ once per round, and a +1 with his on-hand. For 12 skillpts, he could've bought Weap Mast II, which would give +1 to hit with both, plus allow him to do more dmg, and be well on his way (8/14 pts) to Weap Mast III.

(Speaking of, by my count, Jimmy has 8 prof pts too many, which might not seem like a lot, but is a big help at low level.)

Multi-attack makes everything better. Disarm, Critical Hit, Counterattack- always buy up Multiattack.

4) Casters need to buy up spellcircles as soon as they can, since spell slot accrual begins when you buy the circle. That's another mechanic biased towards powergaming... there's just too much good stuff that happens when you buy a circle. It was great to get John Applegate's Ritual Magic V at 6th level, and to start with 2nd circle. I honestly don't think that's broken, especially when you compare to the high-END fighter beast.

5) Another problem is costs of some things. Maybe combine the Climb and Falling profs? And god almighty, why are all the skills 2 for 3? Gives me a damn headache. Make most of them 1 for 1 or 1 for 2. It doesn't matter. Art ability 1 for 2, slight of hand 1 for 2, falling 1 for 2. Do it please.

6) Languages and literacy. In my games, lang skills are essential. But here they're just so costly to buy. With 5 pts you can do so much else. Just, damn it, make languages cost 4 pts.

7) Maybe 15 starting prof points, just to give thief types an easier run of it. The problem with Jimmy Swill/Hung type guys is that, since ability scores cap prof scores, they're going to be jack of all trades. Have a bunch of skills at 10-14, which is fine for mid levels, but becomes silly at high levels, because these guys can't succeed at big penalty, high risk skillchecks. I like the mechanic though. Just not sure how to make this one more workable. Or make more skills 'general'?

8) Feint seems like it kicks ass. Everyone should max it out as soon as they can.

9) Running, oh god! So cheap and so good. This is a game breaker. Increased char speed makes or breaks critical fights.

10) Shit, I should've bought Last Stand for Roger Bacon. Just to increase his tankedness. Next level. 6 skillpts for 10 more hp essentially. Combined with Running, and this guy won't ever die.

Nevermind.

Eh. Forget it, I am stickin with what we've got. There are other problems with that system I just proposed. -I like casters deciding what to cast on their initiative.

Also, there still remains reasons for mundanes to get that high initiative: kill the caster before he casts, parry, disarm, feint, etc.

It just gets too muddy otherwise.

Now have a look here...

I slept on it, and I think the second option might be much easier. Consider this again:

When casting, characters don't roll for initiative. Spells just go off at a set initiative number.That's the casting time. A fast spell might go off at initiative 9 or 10, A slower on at 2 or 3. Anyone hitting the caster before that initiative might disrupt the spell.

This way, fast spells are fast, slow ones are slow, and cripples don't have the advantage to break spells. It would also be good to have a high initiative, as you could beat the caster.

Caster's could add their normal initiative modifiers to these casting times as well.

I'd make the timing similar. In general, 1st circles would go off at 9, 2nd at 8, etc.

Players announce the spell they are casting before the initiative roll.

GMs don't have to specify, but they could announce that an opponent was casting or not.

The math is even easier, and it solves three problems: 1) Casters can't choose spells based upon knowledge of opponent's initiatives, 2) Faster characters are more likely able to disrupt casting, and 3) Casters don't need to do math every time they roll initiative. -No finger counting.

Also, strategy in casting remains: choose a fast spell if you need to get it through.

I think this is more elegant.

The wizard and the leper fight outside time

Dodge & casting:
I see Ed's point, but it's just really too much to have both a concentration save and half dodge. I was serious abot the archers though... if you're gonna screw casters, you gotta screw everyone. I remember fighting with sticks... when someone's attacking you, either you're attacking back and not caring if you get hit, or you're actively defending. Usually not both at once. So then mages need more armor and hp, which takes skillpoints, and by the time they can survive combats, they're not really mages.

Initiative:
Ah, let's just leave it as is. Adds some strategy to casting, or trying to block casting. It's weird that you can only defer to 0, instead of some intermediate value, but it's a clunky game mechanic that offers a bit of balance. I'm just trying to pick apart everything here, you know, for the sake of the chiildren.

We gotta add a horology spell though that lets the caster defer to -1. 'Outside time' except for cripples.

Maybe some good interpose rules too, or even a 'cover me!' skill, for fighters to protect their spellcasting friends.

'Night all.

One armed wizard.

Yeah, that half dodge for casters was Ed's idea. I was not totally comfortable with it either. It won't bother me to drop it. -Consider it done.

Well, as it is, mages decide what to cast at their initiative. Yeah, the knowledge of other initiatives might be screwy, but so is every caster deciding whether or not they cast at the beginning of the round.

If the DM kept his initiatives secret, it would help solve that problem. -Sure, he could screw the players, but nothing can ever stop a DM from doing that.

Hmm. Maybe we need to totally rework the idea of initiative? Get out of the box? I am open to it.

Maybe spells could have set initiative numbers. Like 10, 8, 4, where the spell goes off at that initiative. Hitting the caster before that initiative could disrupt. Casters announce the spell before the initiative roll. DM announces casting last. -It's very simple.

I defer

Initiative: so then, mages should always defer to 0, yes? That way, no matter how long their spell is, it can't be disrupted except by other people going at 0.

Or maybe not. If a mage has a low, but nonzero initiative, anyone who acts faster than he does can't disrupt the spell. You can only defer to 0. So it's to a mage's advantage to always roll fairly low, then wait and see who's acting when, and cast a spell accordingly.

Well, I like it sort of, but it still seems a bit off. If I'm super fast, there's no way I can break concentration, unless I defer and pray the mage rolled very low.

If I was a mage, I'd want to make a magic item called 'Belt of the Snail': always go at -1 initiative. Then I'd never have to worry about anyone breaking concentration, except for guys with really low AGILs, but they'll be less likely to hit anyway. That's sort of funny... cripples might have the best chance to break a mage's conc.

Do you see the problem here?

This is also what I mean by slowing down the game. Obviously I'm not talking about how hard it is to do subtraction. I mean, a PC mage asking every round when everyone's going and taking forever to decide which spell to cast when. Not to mention NPC mages doing the same. You can't say 'well no one can know anyone else's initiative', because certainly for the DM, that's not true, and as a mage, I might want a skill that lets me assess turn order in a combat.

...

Whoa, a mage's Dodge is cut in half when casting? God, why not just make it so to buy Hermetic Potential, you have to start with the skill: "One Armed: you have one arm. Good luck!" Fuck that. Remove that rule. The more I look at this game, the more biased it is against casters.

By the same logic you're using there, archers should also have 1/2 dodge when they're firing. And doesn't it take time to target and aim a bow? How the hell can you use a bow when an ogre is bashing you anyway?

Unintended sarcasm.

No, I actually meant the stat math is tricky. It is.

I am willing to change casting time, possibly to our old system: All caster's announce casting at the beginning of each round, if hit before their initiative, they lose concentration. But, then they need to announce the spell they are casting too. Otherwise, counterspell or anything like it doesn't matter. Or, it could be that the spell isn't lost, so there is no need to announce the particular spell.

Still, this seems to be less elegant to me, and to make less sense. Mundanes decide what they are going to do at their initiative, depending upon the circumstances, I think casters should be able to do that too.

Also, what about this one: "I am casting. No, wait, he casts too? No, then I don't cast. Wait he doesn't? Then I do. No wait..." -That could happen at simultaneous caster initiatives in the present system, but it's much less than every round.

Also, I didn't make casting time for metamagic. Metamagic came much later. Casting time isn't awkward or complicated either. It's very simple. What's so difficult or inelegant about quick casting? -For 10 rounds, divide casting times in two. It's not spell for spell.

Look, everytime a mundane attacks, he calculates whether or not he hits with possibly multiple rolls. Can't a mage do single digit subtraction?

Are you saying add weapon time or have no casting time? Should spells be instantaneous? No concentration? I imagine a spell (except spells like powerword) to take much longer than the swing of a sword or the poke of a trident. -That's why weapon speeds are inconsequential.

What do you suggest?

I disagree that the spells are too weak. (I think that's what you are saying). -Ed was saying some were too powerful.

Also, PC's are not NPC's; they grow one level at a time. -That needs to be kept in mind. A NPC made at 7th level is going to be very different from a character that started at 1st and worked his way to 7th. I agree testing needs to be done. -All kinds of it.

Like Mike. The other Mike.

No, the stat math actually is tricky. If all stat values were equally weighted, then yes, 'rollers' on average do 2.5 points better than 'choosers'. (Because 5d4 should average 12.5, which times five is 62.5, vs choosers 60 points.) But stat values aren't equally weighted, because a 15 costs more than 14+1, and the rollers have stat values Gaussian weighted around a 12.5 mean and somewhat narrow sd. In the limit, choosers have exactly a 0% chance of having three 20s, while rollers do not. But yeah, they also have a nonzero chance of all 5s, which choosers do not either. Eh, whatever, just leave it at 35 points. That one extra point is sort of retarded.

If you want to avoid the 5-5 IQ-CHA fighter, make IQ and CHA mundane skills more attractive. CHA skills are plenty attractive, actually. Intimidate is sweet for any priest. IQ is fine for tracking and knowledge skills. Besides, fighters get hit in the face for their job. Low IQ and CHA... Mike Tyson is a 5-5, baby. Maybe 4-4.

...

Casting time and metamagic. I think you're taking the backwards approach. Something is awkward in system, so you try to fix it with another system mechanic? Wasting a spell just to cast a spell faster? Ugh. That's inelegant. I don't like motivating a complicated system mechanic just to make wizards waste more spells.

Okay, named spells fits with the Spellcraft skill. That works for me. "Liking something as players" doesn't work for me; because the system is only half for players. PCs outnumber the GM, but it's the GM who'll be making the damn world. So GM's vote counts more than any one player's, in terms of what's good in a system. I'm obviously not talking specifically about me vs you for voting, I mean in general, GM vs PC.

Do different weapons 'swing' at different rates? Do crossbows take time to reload? An axe or TH sword is more unwieldly, slower than a rapier. If you're putting in casting time, what about weapon time?

Make spells better. Mundanes are much better than wizards in my limited char design to date. Of course, the spellcraft skill is just another way that wizards are punished.

Honestly though, I suggest some GMing experience with the system. I'm not talking about playing Chickens (i.e. making some guys and having them fight), but actually making a set of characters and taking them through a world to see if skill advancement works and if archetypes are balanced. Otherwise we'll never know. Also, it'll give you players a wider perspective on system design.

Bob's sucky spell.

Stats: If the chooser takes all 12's then he is 2.5 points behind the average roll. I could give them 37 or 38 points, I guess, but 35 seems better. The math is crazy though, huh? Remember, a roller is just as likely to roll three 5's as he is three 20's. Yet, this isn't 3d6, it's 5d4 which makes either very unlikely. DM's can be choosers. Hell, they can even make the players be choosers.

A minimum stat of 5 is fine. Isn't that shitty enough? I really think choosing leads to "all fighters are ugly" type games. Why bother with Cha unless you're a cleric? At least with rolling there's a chance a guy might have a good stat left over for Cha. I don't know, you can make people choose in your campaign. -Rolling is just optional.

Ok, this is it: choosers get all 5's and 36 points. -Break it as you wish. I don't even want to think about the fighter with Ag:14, Ch: 5, In:5, En: 15, St:17. -Bleh.

Casting time: Casting time is critical for metamagic. Also, it's very easy. I cast a spell with -4 casting time. My initiative is 8, my spell takes effect at initiative 4.

Before, we had mages able to lose concentration up until their initiative, so casting time was initiative-dependent by default. In this system, there are a quite a few rules, like combat abilities, that are dependent upon initiative. Casting is one of them. In the majority of cases, the time is just the circle of the spell. 5th circle spell cast at initiative 8 goes off at 3. It's not hard to do. Also, it might encourage a bit of strategy on a mage's part. -Cast a fast low circle spell, or a slow powerful high circle one?

We did have casting times before, we just calculated it differently.

Spell names: I guess we like the flavor as players. It stirs the imagination. There is a spellcraft ability, so it fits with the system that some popular spells might be out there floating around with their creator's name on them. -Character's could aspire to do the same.

I guess with named spells you know who to blame for mages sucking so bad

Quoting Mark: "As for the base 5'er, I figure the 'choosers' shouldn't have anything the 'rollers' can't, -even if those things are shitty stats."

Huh? The converse certainly isn't true- 'rollers' can have three 20s for example, which 'choosers' cannot. As it is, the rollers have a significant advantage, stat point wise, over the choosers. I'd say 5-6 points ahead, on average, but I haven't done the math, which isn't trivial due to the nonlinear scale (12 to 20 is much more expensive than 4 to 12).

I'm smelling personal bias and arbitration here. Just change it back. Choosing is more fun than rolling. (Especially when you're a DM making NPCs.) Trust me, I asked like five imaginary friends, so the vote is 6 to whatever.

...

On that note, you still haven't addressed two things:
1) why spell casting time?
2) why named spells?

Casting time was in 1E and we never played with it, except for spells that took a full round to cast. The motivation for this rule, which increases complexity and increases PC failure rate, is what exactly? Mages suck enough as it is.

As for named spells... doing things by raw vote is sort of lame. Can I hear some argument for why named spells make sense and are neat to have in a system?