John, I realize I'm late to the party here, but wouldn't a more functional idea be to simply ditch the nonproficiency penaly (-4, since under the Santa Vaca rules, it takes dice away, whereas proficiency means zero dice) and replace it with the Weapon Focus feat (so you get a +1 for your feat instead). BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!! By utilizing the Weapon Group Feats system (Stolen rightoff the SRD, all legal-like), you can increase the granularity of proficiency and the variance between characters.
The feat system sounds really cool! I wish I had played DnD like this.
LordStrange, do you think you can upload somewhere a written feat list for the system change you discussed in this video, so that I and other fans don't have to make one from scratch? Pretty please?
Also, you didn't mention Attack Bonus. Is that a feat too, raising your BAB?
Somewhat appealing...sometimes making characters that completely break the mold of what their class is supposed to be is fun... half my 'thieves/rogues' claimed they were bards or fighters who wore plate and just really sucked at fighting. It seemed to add to the role-playing aspects. A feat based selection process may result in alot of min-maxing by people who start taking a "base package" with fewer variations bettween them.. In the hands of good players I think your methods would be fun.
Classes are a straitjacket, but in a game that focuses on combat like D&D, they *do* give every player a clear role. In contrast, space opera RPGs aren't as successful, because characters also tend to be hyperspecialized, but unlike D&D combat the tasks are usually solo (e.g., the engineer and the medical officer can't usually assist each other).
@falseprophecy Also, for an entry-level RPG like D&D, classes are a good shorthand for new players, who might otherwise be overwhelmed with choices. "I want to be like Merlin"--wizard. "I want to be Aragorn"--ranger. White Wolf did a similar thing with Vampire: any vampire you find in fiction can be easily mapped to one of the 7 (old system) or 5 (new system) original vampire clans.
The best compromise seem to be template systems. You can custom build, but they provide prefab options as well.
Wizard: Use Magic, 8 Spell Schools, Scribe Scoll and Familiar Feats with less HP, Prepare Spells, and Spellbook ascetics. That's 11 for 3.
Sorceror: Use Magic, 8 Spell Schools, Find Familiar and Frequent Spellcasting Feats with less HP and Limited Magic Repertoire ascetics. That's 11 for 2.
I'd prefer a little less demand on Feats for Schools (like 2 Schools per Feat), as such a spellcaster would be a hell.... and both Clerics and Druids would end up with 18 Feats each
@ivanmontserrat I was going to suggest the same thing, break the schools of magic down a bit into feats. Otherwise, while the statement is that wizards and sorcerers "suck" reality is, my wiard has extra feats to buff him up with. hell, i can get those bonus hp and some weapons skills. or, just start out casting fourth level spells.
Limited Magic repertoire - You only know as many Spells of a given Spell Level as you can cast per day plus 1.
Prepare Spells - You must select your spells before casting and after sleeping, and can't change them.
Spellbook - You must carry a spellbook or similar item in which you carry the spells you know, if it's lost, you can't cast or prepare them. You cna learn the Spell Mastery feat (yay for getting a Feat that cancells another Feat!)
"Cast magic" Feat --> Learn all spells form a School of Magic of Levels 0 and 1, can cast 3 o the former and 1 of the later.
"Powerful Spellcasting" Feat --> Learn all Spells of a higher Level that you can cast now. You can cast 1 Spell per day of that level and 1 more of each lower Spell Level. (just make it understandable that you get only odd or even Spell Levels boosted)
"Frequent Spellcasting" Feat --> Can cast 1 more Spell per Level that you can cast.
Well, there was a D20 setting in which magic required Feats to cast... *digging up* ... ok, first reference found is Midnight (Fantasy Flight Games), though I recall it's not the first game to do so... having a similar system would "upgrade" the Wizard and Sorcerer Feat count, since they'd need "Magecraft" Feat (1 lev-0 spell), 8 "School" Feats (to be a generalist Wizard, though you can obviate Divination) and "Spells Level 1" Feat... that eats 10 Feats, plus Scribe Scroll ;)
So then does level two spell casting cost one slot?
I think you will find if you break down the spells as per feat and level the spell casters infact have alot of feats.
Say each spell slot cost you a feat and access to each spell level cost a feat wizards and that wouldn't be that bad making an open access to magic for the cost of one feat doesn't repesent the scarcity of magic.
System must be a slave to setting.
Currently what your talking about it beyond high magic.
I'm just worried about higher level spells.. a low level caster sucks.. this is true.. but a, lets say 10th, level wizard has a lot more capability then a 10th level fighter... you "bad of tricks" is much deeper..
I can't see this working without some major rework of magic..
Honestly, my system of skills is running similar to the Santa Vaca feat layout. Going classless in other play tests has lead to some really fun and unusual characters. To me classes are just one way of saying this your job, that's it. Well a job is just a job to get money. A character is more than just a job. A character is person with many skills and a lot of this 'what separates characters' none sense is one reason I stopped playing D&D. Not everyone goes for the same feats or skills.
Waitwhat? You broke down primary arcane casting, which is one of the most powerful michés in the game, so that it costs only four feats?
Did you at least place some sort of restriction on how quickly a player can increase his magic abilities, so that we wind up with first-level spellcasters with 30 HP instead of first-level characters with 6th-level spells?
I find this interesting. I also find it a bit unnecessary. For starters, WotC actually did some very similar in their Unearthed Arcana supplement. Also, Mutants and Masterminds.......I will just leave it at that.
@thadrine Also, while WotC did some tearing apart of their game in UA and Monte Cook did similar in AU, and M&M is a classless d20 game, and dozens of others have modified d20 in dozens of other ways, that's no reason John shouldn't do the same. A writer writes. A designer designs.
Or to put it another way: We're talking about RPGs. Nothing is "necessary".
{technical: please compress and normalize the audio - it was kind of hard to hear you in a few spots}
Agreed with azirk83 - this sounds a bit more like collaborative design. Less imbalanced than the 4-11 range might be to have a set of 3 meta-feats: Feat-Based, Skill-Basked, Arcane-Based. Each would give a bonus in keeping with the labelled character concept at the expense of the other 2. You could then go back and choose a different feat to balance the character concept, morality or connection
Interesting look at the classes. What is your opinion on going classless in an RPG? I have been working on two RPGs from the ground up and anytime classes come out in play test, my players feel stereotyped. So I went with a skill system that any character can use any skill. Does this make sense?
@FleetwolfLupinoss Yes. As long as there is a distinction that some people are better than other. Classes are lame in any game I have ever seen them in.
@thadrine Let me fix that for ya: any time there is a distinction between characters in any way, one is better than another.
Classless systems have worse issues keeping characters balanced than strictly defined class-based systems because options are the enemy of balance. Classes are simply a type of option. In classless systems, there are more options. More options equals less balance.
The Sorcerer casts anything he knows at any time. He's one of the most overpowered classes in the book.
And in D&D heavy armor is forced on fighters, especially in this system, because offensive abilities escalate while defensive abilities are static.
Also, playtesting involves playing. This seems more like collaborative game design to me. Just an opinion. I look forward to your post Sunless Citadel vid.
WToC should hire you, John. Not that you would accept, but maybe you could save them. :)
Antiks72 1 month ago
John, I realize I'm late to the party here, but wouldn't a more functional idea be to simply ditch the nonproficiency penaly (-4, since under the Santa Vaca rules, it takes dice away, whereas proficiency means zero dice) and replace it with the Weapon Focus feat (so you get a +1 for your feat instead). BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!! By utilizing the Weapon Group Feats system (Stolen rightoff the SRD, all legal-like), you can increase the granularity of proficiency and the variance between characters.
LeMayJoseph 5 months ago
So this makes it now possible to have that character who's just really good at using swords, but couldn't use a polearm any better than the next guy.
LeMayJoseph 5 months ago
The feat system sounds really cool! I wish I had played DnD like this.
LordStrange, do you think you can upload somewhere a written feat list for the system change you discussed in this video, so that I and other fans don't have to make one from scratch? Pretty please?
Also, you didn't mention Attack Bonus. Is that a feat too, raising your BAB?
androsh 8 months ago
Wizards/sorcerers suck because they can access the largest and most flexible pool of character abilities in the entire game?
Kharesh 1 year ago
Somewhat appealing...sometimes making characters that completely break the mold of what their class is supposed to be is fun... half my 'thieves/rogues' claimed they were bards or fighters who wore plate and just really sucked at fighting. It seemed to add to the role-playing aspects. A feat based selection process may result in alot of min-maxing by people who start taking a "base package" with fewer variations bettween them.. In the hands of good players I think your methods would be fun.
anonincognitus 1 year ago
@anonincognitus "In the hands of good players..."
Why play with bad ones?
LordStrange 1 year ago 2
@LordStrange You still have that false dichotomy? You should get that looked at.
And yeah, I'm just giving you crap because you're giving him crap.
azirk83 1 year ago
@azirk83 shut up you fat fuck...
titsubo 1 year ago
Classes are a straitjacket, but in a game that focuses on combat like D&D, they *do* give every player a clear role. In contrast, space opera RPGs aren't as successful, because characters also tend to be hyperspecialized, but unlike D&D combat the tasks are usually solo (e.g., the engineer and the medical officer can't usually assist each other).
falseprophecy 1 year ago
@falseprophecy Also, for an entry-level RPG like D&D, classes are a good shorthand for new players, who might otherwise be overwhelmed with choices. "I want to be like Merlin"--wizard. "I want to be Aragorn"--ranger. White Wolf did a similar thing with Vampire: any vampire you find in fiction can be easily mapped to one of the 7 (old system) or 5 (new system) original vampire clans.
The best compromise seem to be template systems. You can custom build, but they provide prefab options as well.
falseprophecy 1 year ago
Ok, with those premises...
Wizard: Use Magic, 8 Spell Schools, Scribe Scoll and Familiar Feats with less HP, Prepare Spells, and Spellbook ascetics. That's 11 for 3.
Sorceror: Use Magic, 8 Spell Schools, Find Familiar and Frequent Spellcasting Feats with less HP and Limited Magic Repertoire ascetics. That's 11 for 2.
I'd prefer a little less demand on Feats for Schools (like 2 Schools per Feat), as such a spellcaster would be a hell.... and both Clerics and Druids would end up with 18 Feats each
ivanmontserrat 1 year ago
@ivanmontserrat I was going to suggest the same thing, break the schools of magic down a bit into feats. Otherwise, while the statement is that wizards and sorcerers "suck" reality is, my wiard has extra feats to buff him up with. hell, i can get those bonus hp and some weapons skills. or, just start out casting fourth level spells.
itsatrapitsalways 1 year ago
Now, "Ascetics"!
Hp d4 - You get less hp.
Limited Magic repertoire - You only know as many Spells of a given Spell Level as you can cast per day plus 1.
Prepare Spells - You must select your spells before casting and after sleeping, and can't change them.
Spellbook - You must carry a spellbook or similar item in which you carry the spells you know, if it's lost, you can't cast or prepare them. You cna learn the Spell Mastery feat (yay for getting a Feat that cancells another Feat!)
ivanmontserrat 1 year ago
Ok, let's turn this into proposals....
"Cast magic" Feat --> Learn all spells form a School of Magic of Levels 0 and 1, can cast 3 o the former and 1 of the later.
"Powerful Spellcasting" Feat --> Learn all Spells of a higher Level that you can cast now. You can cast 1 Spell per day of that level and 1 more of each lower Spell Level. (just make it understandable that you get only odd or even Spell Levels boosted)
"Frequent Spellcasting" Feat --> Can cast 1 more Spell per Level that you can cast.
ivanmontserrat 1 year ago
Hmmmm.....
Well, there was a D20 setting in which magic required Feats to cast... *digging up* ... ok, first reference found is Midnight (Fantasy Flight Games), though I recall it's not the first game to do so... having a similar system would "upgrade" the Wizard and Sorcerer Feat count, since they'd need "Magecraft" Feat (1 lev-0 spell), 8 "School" Feats (to be a generalist Wizard, though you can obviate Divination) and "Spells Level 1" Feat... that eats 10 Feats, plus Scribe Scroll ;)
ivanmontserrat 1 year ago
So then does level two spell casting cost one slot?
I think you will find if you break down the spells as per feat and level the spell casters infact have alot of feats.
Say each spell slot cost you a feat and access to each spell level cost a feat wizards and that wouldn't be that bad making an open access to magic for the cost of one feat doesn't repesent the scarcity of magic.
System must be a slave to setting.
Currently what your talking about it beyond high magic.
It's cloud magic.
Caladors 1 year ago
I'm just worried about higher level spells.. a low level caster sucks.. this is true.. but a, lets say 10th, level wizard has a lot more capability then a 10th level fighter... you "bad of tricks" is much deeper..
I can't see this working without some major rework of magic..
nunspa 1 year ago
As "Ascetic" is a 1st level feat it will be available to all characters, right?
Tsanuri 1 year ago
Honestly, my system of skills is running similar to the Santa Vaca feat layout. Going classless in other play tests has lead to some really fun and unusual characters. To me classes are just one way of saying this your job, that's it. Well a job is just a job to get money. A character is more than just a job. A character is person with many skills and a lot of this 'what separates characters' none sense is one reason I stopped playing D&D. Not everyone goes for the same feats or skills.
FleetwolfLupinoss 1 year ago
Waitwhat? You broke down primary arcane casting, which is one of the most powerful michés in the game, so that it costs only four feats?
Did you at least place some sort of restriction on how quickly a player can increase his magic abilities, so that we wind up with first-level spellcasters with 30 HP instead of first-level characters with 6th-level spells?
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM Three feats. I'm guessing "Find Familiar" is a feat unto itself.
azirk83 1 year ago
I find this interesting. I also find it a bit unnecessary. For starters, WotC actually did some very similar in their Unearthed Arcana supplement. Also, Mutants and Masterminds.......I will just leave it at that.
thadrine 1 year ago
@thadrine Also, while WotC did some tearing apart of their game in UA and Monte Cook did similar in AU, and M&M is a classless d20 game, and dozens of others have modified d20 in dozens of other ways, that's no reason John shouldn't do the same. A writer writes. A designer designs.
Or to put it another way: We're talking about RPGs. Nothing is "necessary".
azirk83 1 year ago
{technical: please compress and normalize the audio - it was kind of hard to hear you in a few spots}
Agreed with azirk83 - this sounds a bit more like collaborative design. Less imbalanced than the 4-11 range might be to have a set of 3 meta-feats: Feat-Based, Skill-Basked, Arcane-Based. Each would give a bonus in keeping with the labelled character concept at the expense of the other 2. You could then go back and choose a different feat to balance the character concept, morality or connection
ekb65536 1 year ago
Interesting look at the classes. What is your opinion on going classless in an RPG? I have been working on two RPGs from the ground up and anytime classes come out in play test, my players feel stereotyped. So I went with a skill system that any character can use any skill. Does this make sense?
FleetwolfLupinoss 1 year ago
@FleetwolfLupinoss Yes. As long as there is a distinction that some people are better than other. Classes are lame in any game I have ever seen them in.
thadrine 1 year ago
@thadrine Let me fix that for ya: any time there is a distinction between characters in any way, one is better than another.
Classless systems have worse issues keeping characters balanced than strictly defined class-based systems because options are the enemy of balance. Classes are simply a type of option. In classless systems, there are more options. More options equals less balance.
azirk83 1 year ago
@FleetwolfLupinoss IMO going classless is the only thing that makes any sense at all.
hathiphnath 1 year ago
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
The Sorcerer casts anything he knows at any time. He's one of the most overpowered classes in the book.
And in D&D heavy armor is forced on fighters, especially in this system, because offensive abilities escalate while defensive abilities are static.
Also, playtesting involves playing. This seems more like collaborative game design to me. Just an opinion. I look forward to your post Sunless Citadel vid.
azirk83 1 year ago