|
While I have to agree with the potential complications of a Druid from a design perspective, I would subjectively have to voice support for it because I really really do not like how D&D treats Druids: generic Priest-like spellcasters with nature-themed spells and Wild Shape is a temporary condition that isn't even earned right away (except in 4th Edition PBUH). I just wanna turn into a big goddamn bear and gently caress up some dudes, why does it have to be so complicated?* As for Warlocks, I picture them as a d6 or even a d8 class that plays around with their HP and Defense levels to ramp up the power of their spells. Something like the Paladin's Lay on Hands tradeoff, except it only applies to damage, and then the Warlock can Life Drain back some life? Just spitballing here. * setting aside reflavoring the Warrior as a big goddamn bear, because WoW-style Druid Shapeshifting also implies versatility
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 11:38 |
|
|
Took a stab at a Druid:quote:Druid (d6) The basic idea is, each form has a static benefit that gives a you reason to stay in it, but also a temporary boon to incentivize switching often (in Eagle's case, the switch ability is more of a panic button/combo piece to use with Cat). Each form also has a sort of combat role (Bear = defense, Cat = damage, Bird = utility/support). The Proficient skill ability is just to make sure Bear and Eagle's special skills work; I didn't want this Druid to have too many bonuses to default skills since it has a broad skill set and Eagle can fly around. e: changed/corrected some things. Generic Octopus fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Aug 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:On the topic of Monk chat, I think the case for doing it as a Ranger Archetype is fairly strong (not perfect, but strong). It'd take a little finessing from the base laid out by Jimmeeee (for example, you can't have Advantage on a Trade-off, such as a Counter-Attack). I think taking the Scout and walking it towards something more like an Avenger kinda works for Monk. It's still weird, because the disparate fluff makes it ~feel~ like the classes are kinda shoehorned together. Mechanically they mesh, though.. drrockso20 posted:Hmm for a class with Sorcerer and Warlock as the two paths, I'd suggest having Sorcerer be the standard Shooty Mage, while Warlock be an up close and in your face sort of class(basically Bladepact Warlock meets Sword Mage), not quite sure what the Ur-Class would be called though
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
On the subject of monks, it'd be kinda easy to reflavor the Warrior as one. Instead of Rage, the character switches stances/styles; Cleave becomes Flurry of Blows, etc. At least that sounds like an Open Hand/Martial Arts kind of monk, to me. Maybe a case could be made for making it a Warrior archetype?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
edit: ^^^agree that reflavouring a Warrior as a Monk would be easy as pie. I still think if you can toss in enough mechanics to make it a Warrior Archetype, it would be better suited as its own class. Not that I necessarily dislike the idea of one mechanical-class covering the fluff of many "typical" RPG classes (in fact, that's kinda what my previous RPG was built on) but I'm not sure that's what I want for The Next Project.drrockso20 posted:that all sounds good, what were your thoughts on my specific suggestions earlier?(also for Druids, maybe mix in some 4E Shaman and/or Warden into the mix as well) drrockso20 posted:Hmm for a class with Sorcerer and Warlock as the two paths, I'd suggest having Sorcerer be the standard Shooty Mage, while Warlock be an up close and in your face sort of class(basically Bladepact Warlock meets Sword Mage), not quite sure what the Ur-Class would be called though Here's a sample/idea power I had for a blasty mage kinda person: Iconic Ability: Fireball/Burning Hands Choose yourself or one of your allies; as an Action, make a ranged basic attack against all enemies engaged with the target you chose. On a successful attack, deal 1 Class Die (d6) of damage per each enemy targetted by this Ability. For example, if you target 3 enemies, each enemy you hit would take 3d6 damage. Since these are basic attacks, anyone you missed would take damage equal to the attack roll. (Almost like "Save for half", really) Assuming it's always a ranged attack, you would have disadvantage if you chose yourself as the target or if you used this when you're engaged. drrockso20 posted:Also for Monks, I'm thinking for it's split branches they would be Ki Master(focusing on esoteric abilities using one's inner energies), and either the Sword Saint(honing a mastery of a specific weapon to the point where it's a literal extension of one's soul), or the Zen Master(becoming so in sync with the harmony of the Universe that one gains a supernatural relationship with the world around it, thus being able to do things that would appear to be magic to others) maybe even all three, I'll admit I'm kinda focusing on the fluff side of things here with mechanics being second as that's more your department(plus I'm awful at math) Ki Master is an idea I kind of like, insofar as giving a monk a pool of something akin to 5e Ki, or Cunning Action; "You can spend this resource to take additional actions, but they can only be actions XYZ" such as Defend. Sword Saint is hard to translate from fluff->mechanics, since there aren't really weapons in this game. If you give me a mechanical starting point as to what the class does when you play it, I can possibly port that over. Zen Master is a little light. I assume we're thinking of some kinds of wire-fu abilities or flight. Mechanically this would have to come down to "Proficient when you jump or climb to gain High Ground" or something similar, in this system. An idea for a monk ability I had was this:
At the start of each of your turns, roll your class die (assuming a d4 or d6 in this case). You can ignore a number of points of damage up to to the result of the roll, until the start of your next turn. You may assign this however you please. Generic Octopus posted:Took a stab at a Druid: Some interesting ideas here. The bear's damage-soaking is particularly intriguing. My concern is for out of combat; it basically makes it so that the Druid can always have the right "skill aspect" up, which can potentially step on toes/skew math. This was a concern I had with gradenko_2000's Marshal Archetype for 5e -- they basically had at will "+to Ability Check" auras which is just a spammable +math to "exactly the thing I need right now" all the time. This touches on something that I think 5e gets wrong that I hope to avoid falling into. In 5e, you're basically never going to use Cure Wounds or Guidance in combat, because of Action Economy. Outside of combat, though, it's a different story -- but the game mechanics don't really make the distinction. So you end up with Clerics casting Guidance on every skill check out of combat, and in combat your half-casters are always going to opt for killing the enemy instead of using Cure Wounds. Most of the time. To that end, I slapped together the skill system from an idea I had, and wanted to cover all the typical RPG skills, with groups of skills instead of giving each class long lists. It might be worthwhile to break it down into distinct in-combat and out-of-combat uses, though. But how? I think the 4e idea of utility powers bares some merit, as long as they stick to their silo. It's a conclusion I keep coming back to, but haven't spent and depth of time figuring out the implementation. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Aug 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
So, how about...  Warlords?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:So, how about... I'm imagining lots of abilities that allow you to add your class die to your friends' rolls. Off the top of my head, I'd imagine them as a d8 class: they're not as offensive as the Paladin nor the Warrior, but still relatively good at mixing it up. Class skills should probably be FORT and Influence, with your Warlord archetype giving you a second basic ability: INT for Tactical Warlords and CHA for Inspiring Warlords. As to how to differentiate the two archetypes, I'm not sure how it'd translate into the Next Project, but Tactical Warlords in 4e are more about giving their friends free attacks and bonuses to attacks, while Inspiring Warlords are more about healing and defensive buffs. I'm imagining they'd have some reaction-type abilities, like the Tactical Warlord could give their allies their class die on attack rolls, whereas the Inspiring Warlord would either give their class die on their allies' defense rolls, which I guess is one way to model the Inspiring Warlord's focus on healing and defense. As for actual iconic attacks and stuff, I have no idea. If you wanted to go full lazylord I guess they could just have an attack which allows their allies to make an attack, I guess? Or you could use something like Hunter's Mark to model it: the Warlord points at an enemy, goes "Kill that rear end in a top hat" and their allies get a benefit similar to Hunter's Mark (but probably lesser, maybe just the expertise on the attack) on attacks against that enemy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:I'm imagining lots of abilities that allow you to add your class die to your friends' rolls. I think the "Kill That rear end in a top hat" approach would probably work better for PbP, just so you don't need to wait for another player to take an action in the middle of your turn. I think the above is a great start to a Warlord class and I'd like to see them in the game. I think the game could also use some sort of "pet" class. The trick in this game would be implementing it in such a way that it's simple but balanced compared to the other classes. 5e's Necromancer taught us all the risk of breaking the action economy, so I tried to avoid handing out too much in the way of extra attacks. Here is a quick idea I had for one. As always, feel free to tear it to shreds. quote:The Summoner (d4) To me it seems like the two archetypes look fine compared to one another; the Beastmaster's minions are slightly more capable in combat and the Necromancer's minions are mostly good for Engaging enemies and then dying. I'd love to get some feedback on it though. Tenebrous Tourist fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Aug 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Jimmeeee posted:I think the game could also use some sort of "pet" class. The trick in this game would be implementing it in such a way that it's simple but balanced compared to the other classes. 5e's Necromancer taught us all the risk of breaking the action economy Here is a quick idea I had for one. As always, feel free to tear it to shreds. My overall impression is that the only thing holding this together is that it's a d4 class; like, if you built around bigger numbers it would start to break things. As it is, the extra damage output from the minions is (eyeball math) roughly on par with something like the multi-shot magic missile, but you're still adding a whole bunch of HP to the party's pool, which is another consideration. The Beastmaster's ability to grant a minion a free attack on something you attack might be over the line. Also  the Damage on a Miss rule rears its ugly head  Probably minion attacks would have to be ruled as "Iconic Attacks"I haven't had a whole lot of time to crunch any numbers on new classes, between work/life/other PbPs. Maybe once I find some time I'll try and do some work on the 2nd slate of classes. ... Some thoughts on the Warlord; it seems like you could easily slot anything into that d8 spot, so I'm kinda leaning towards d10 or possibly even d12. I don't think it's out of line to be like "I pass my turn off; someone else gets a huge bonus." 4e Warlord chat in the thread kinda has me leaning towards a more offensively-oriented class, since that's apparently their best utilization (dead monsters get no actions, and such) P.d0t fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Aug 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:My overall impression is that the only thing holding this together is that it's a d4 class; like, if you built around bigger numbers it would start to break things. Good points on the Summoner class. It looks like it would add about 6 HP on average, so realistically the Summoner has about 10 HP. The Summoner's damage drops off as it takes damage though (indirectly, at least, from losing minions), so that may prevent it from being too strong. I forgot all about the damage on a miss rule, so calling them Iconic Attacks is probably the best way around that. What if the Warlord was added as a Warrior archetype? The present Warrior class could be split into the Marshal and Barbarian. Both archetypes could get Cleave and Martial Superiority, then the Barbarian could get Rage while the Marshal gets some sort of Tactical Strike ability. That may also help with the concern that Warriors are a little bit too strong now. Tenebrous Tourist fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Aug 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Part of the problem with the Warrior is that it tries to simultaneously be "Best At Fighting™"-class while also being "Gets Better At Damage While Raging"-class. So, once upon a time, it had "advantage on melee damage rolls; advantage on melee attack rolls when raging" but that got switched around, because "missing does nothing" (typically, in D&D) so the Best At Fighting guy's hitting is more important than his damage. But maybe the DoaM rule kinda mitigates it, to the point where having both of those Advantages is just piling on..? That said, the Advantage on basic attacks sort of mirrors the design of the Mage, where part of the class' shtick is being able to gamble reliably on Power Attacks. This, too, is a "Best at Fighting" sort of idea; the fighter has such mastery of his weapons that he can feint and coup fourré while still hitting with the force of a truck, whereas someone else in the same situation has to guess and gamble to hit that hard. I guess the long and short of it is whether the damage should be brought more into line with other classes, but make the class more complex (with more buttons to push) to compensate.. or just stick with the status quo. I'm not sure I feel particularly strongly about redesigning the class from the ground up, but some minor tone-downs might be in order. .... On the topic of Archetypes vs. New Classes, I kind of want to do a new set of classes just for it's own sake, and then once that's beaten into shape, worry about going back to the first batch and making new archetypes. With that in mind, what would be peoples' like, "2nd Team All-Stars of D&D Classes" look like? Monk, Druid, Blaster-Caster seem like popular options wherever I ask, and Warlord gets some mentions, which is why I brought up those classes. Maybe just starting with a list that is different enough from the first slate is a good starting point, then working on anything/everything that could/should be made an archetype. Thoughts? P.d0t fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Aug 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Monk, Druid, Necromancer/Summoner (probably have those be archetypes where necro gets a bunch of disposable minions and summoner gets 1 super pet), and Warlord/Leader are the four I think of. Honestly for the Leader class, I might look at separating out the Priest archetype from the Paladin class, then make Warlord/Priest archetypes of the whatever you'd call the Leader. I think that'd focus Paladin a little (have Knight/Blackguard be a choice between protecting allies & killing enemies) and keep the general theme of Class -> 2 archetypes (Warrior kinda does this with Rage/Not Rage). Then, with Leader, you could orient the archetypes around healing/reactive/passive support (Priest) and enabling/proactive support (Warlord). For Warrior I'd consider having a way to switch back from Raging. It's sorta in the same boat as the Berserker from 4e right now; it wants to be Raging at the start of battle to deal a bunch of damage right off the bat and get enemies off the board, then step down into a more defensive stance to soak hits/protect injured allies post alpha strike. Idk, charop/theoryop aside, just thinking it might be more interesting to have the option to switch back if needed rather than a single choice per battle (besides trade-offs).
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Monk, Druid, Necromancer/Summoner (probably have those be archetypes where necro gets a bunch of disposable minions and summoner gets 1 super pet), and Warlord/Leader are the four I think of. OTOH, what about the Druid having a shapechanging archetype, and a beastmaster archetype? So far only the rogue has archetypes that silo off abilities by archetype to anywhere near this level.. Although I guess the Hunter/Scout divide does this a little; Mage does it even less and Paladin does it almost not at all (depending on how you squint and tilt your head). With "The Unnamed RPG" (which is the game I did before "The Next Project") the character building was basically a point-buy sorta deal, with the intention of pushing towards particular archetypes. Oddly enough, one of those archetypes was basically "Necromancer/Druid, depending how you fluff it" so that's already an idea I'm ok with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Monk, Druid, Necromancer/Summoner (probably have those be archetypes where necro gets a bunch of disposable minions and summoner gets 1 super pet), and Warlord/Leader are the four I think of. Yeah I'd say Monk(Ki Master and whatever it's other Archetypes will be, might need to dig through Book of 9 Swords or 4E PHB3/Psionic Power to find something), Druid(standard Druid, Shaman, Warden) Summoner(Necromancer, & Beast Binder), Warlord(Marshal & Cavalier to represent Warlords who lead through words and through actions respectively), and Mystic(Sorcerer, & Warlock/Sword Mage) would work rather well as the Second Wave Classes, although obviously their mechanical aspects would need a ton of work to fit in right
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
drrockso20 posted:(standard Druid, Shaman, Warden) I'm still kinda wondering/trying to figure out what mechanics you want to see for these classes/archetypes. Like, when I think of 4e Warden, I think: - a mark that's sorta like Defender Aura, but you cast it and then can move around and the mark stays - stances that grant a passive buff and then an associated attack power (but to what depth and breadth this would go is another matter) - mark punishments with some measure of positional control (GET OVER HERE, etc.) and for Shaman (I had one in my party once, never played it): - handing out bonuses/attacks/etc. if people are nearby with your animal/spirit companion thingy - healing two dudes at once, sometimes  I think there's the makings of valid archetypes there, but I'm not sure how much mechanically it translates; to wit, the real problem is you can't be engaged with your allies so porting over support/buff ability based on adjacency is currently kind of hard. Or it becomes wordy; "when an enemy engaged with your spirit and with an ally does _____ your ally can _____" for example. If you then make the stock Druid be the shapechanging archetype, I still think all 3 are left little bare; that's not necessarily a bad thing, since you don't want to have a class be particularly complicated or overly versatile, but if the Archetype are a little thin, then the core class needs to have abilities that are useful but which also fit all 3 archetypes. That's the hard part about it. ... Still pondering where the Beastmaster class/archetype fits. There's a case to be made for Druid Archetype, Ranger Archetype, or a subclass/archetype for a Summoner class. I think the Monk Archetype posted upthread kinda got me thinking that the Ranger could be spruced up a lot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Warlord/Leader This might sound stupid, but what if you did this class as a Cleric? Like, Warlord->War Priest is basically the idea I'm thinking; a fighty, offensive leader, where the other Archetype is more about healing and defense or other kinds of support? I'm having trouble thinking of a name for the latter, TBH.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
Skills, Character Sheet As a starting point towards making a standardized character sheet, and as an attempt to clarify how class skills/proficient skills work, I made this handy spreadsheet. So, if you have a Basic Ability (Fort, Wis, etc.) for Class Skills, you roll all the skills under that heading at Advantage i.e. each row in which that Basic Ability appears. And, if you have a Skillset (Athletics, Deception, etc.) for Class Skills, you roll all the skills in that BOX at Advantage, regardless of Basic Abilities. With your Proficient Skills, you get to use your class die in some way, as explained by your class, so for example: Knight would get the skills [CHA+Influence] and [CHA+Insight] as Proficient Skills, so you find the Influence section and the Detection section, and put a check-mark or asterisk or whatever in the Proficiency boxes for the CHA rows (as I have done in the link) Clear as mud?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Conditions/Basic Mechanics Alright, so I was thinking on this earlier today, and I figured I should post here for some feedback. Currently these are in the rules:
Hidden: a creature that is Hidden cannot be attacked or Engaged. What I want to add:
Prone: a creature that is prone grants Advantage to all melee attack rolls, and to all ranged attack rolls if the attacker is engaged with the target. A creature can use either its Move or its Action to remove this condition. Changes to be made:
Athletics: to be made usable as a Move in-combat (may or may not include Grapple, we'll see) Engaged: Probably will allow certain classes (i.e. Monk) to flatout prevent enemies from Disengaging from them. Is there anything else I'm missing that should be added? Or should these be incorporated differently?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:I'm still kinda wondering/trying to figure out what mechanics you want to see for these classes/archetypes. I'll admit I wasn't really thinking from a proper mechanical perspective, mostly on a fluff one, also what were your thoughts on my other ideas for Classes and their respective Archetypes(at least in regard to names)?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 07:57
|
|
|
You mean this?drrockso20 posted:Yeah I'd say Monk(Ki Master and whatever it's other Archetypes will be, might need to dig through Book of 9 Swords or 4E PHB3/Psionic Power to find something), Druid(standard Druid, Shaman, Warden) Summoner(Necromancer, & Beast Binder), Warlord(Marshal & Cavalier to represent Warlords who lead through words and through actions respectively), and Mystic(Sorcerer, & Warlock/Sword Mage) would work rather well as the Second Wave Classes, although obviously their mechanical aspects would need a ton of work to fit in right Yeah I think these classes are generally the consensus (unless I hear a ton of different suggestions very soon). It's just a matter of implementation, i.e. this: P.d0t posted:This might sound stupid, but what if you did this class as a Cleric? P.d0t posted:Still pondering where the Beastmaster class/archetype fits. There's a case to be made for Druid Archetype, Ranger Archetype, or a subclass/archetype for a Summoner class. I have some ideas for Monk stuff; really liking the idea of a Ki pool for extra actions and the "Stoneskin" thing I posted upthread. Maybe some extra effects on attacks, if you roll max damage? Swordmage is another interesting idea I'd wanna explore mechanically (no playing experience personally, but it's another one of those cool/good innovations to come from 4e) Warlock will be interesting to actually implement, w/r/t what kinds of trade-offs they'll be able to make, or what they would gain from damaging themselves/how they would suck the life out of people. edit: As for Druid/Shaman/Warden, I think the names are fine, it's just a matter of which class(es) get pets. Druid? Ranger? Summoner/Necromancer only? Like, if Druids are the odd man out of the summoning game, then either you're going to have 2 very similar archetypes, or you really really really have to have a solid idea of what they both do, and be very different from one another. Typically Druids can cover a lot of design space, so breaking them down into those component parts and making those into the Archetypes is kinda what I mean. more edit: Marshal and Cavalier, I'm kinda not feeling. I mean, if you wanna  about it, a Cavalier should be someone who rides a horse, or otherwise moves really fast/outflanks the enemy and catches them in a pincer (not that that's ever what they do in D&D  but whatever). I'm not sure how much potential there is for that to translate from fluff to mechanics, within the existing framework. And a Marshal as "talky leader", I think i would rather do as sorta the "holy priest", if we're gonna rip that from Paladin.
P.d0t fucked around with this message at 08:33 on Aug 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
Pet classes are always going to be weird, especially in a heavily abstracted system such as this. Is the pet a completely independent character with its own pool of actions (probably not because this will mess up the action economy), is it basically a mobile critter that you use as the source of your attacks (this would actually be an interesting avenue to explore with the Ranger, because it'd allow for stuff like making a Twin Strike where the Ranger hits a dude and their pet hits another dude elsewhere) or is it just a mobile buff (i.e. the pet doesn't make attacks of its own, but acts as a buff to nearby allies' attacks, although this carries the same problem that you already mentioned of there being no engaging with allies in the game). Rangers strike me as the most pet-rific class: Druids had a better pet than the Ranger in 3e, but what's a bear when you can personally turn into a bear? The Beastmaster Ranger could be a third archetype for the Ranger. Thinking of it in terms of mechanics I'd have the pet simply act as a potential source for the Ranger's attacks: when the Ranger makes a move, the pet also makes a move. The pet doesn't make attacks independently, but when they use Twin Strike the other attack will target an enemy engaged with the pet. Similarly, the Ranger can use their pet to make opportunity attacks. The problem is, it's not very good like that, is it? It's actually more limited than a Hunter Ranger, because as long as they're not engaged a Hunter Ranger can just shoot two different enemies. To make it competitive with the current Ranger archetypes it needs some type of boost. Sorry, this is very disjointed and probably not very well thought out. e: I reread the relevant rules and remembered there's no attacks of opportunity in this game, just disadvantage on ranged attacks when you're engaged with an enemy. Maybe that's the Beastmaster's thing? They have flexibility in being able to attack two different dudes as long as one is engaged with the pet and can do so without getting disadvantage on their attacks even when engaged? Ratpick fucked around with this message at 08:56 on Aug 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 08:48
|
|
|
Fun easter egg: I editted the Ranger in such a manner that there's technically a "no-Archetype" option. The class skills are independent of Archetypes; you lose out on the extra ability, but you can also use Twin Strike in melee OR ranged You raise some good points though; you can't really tack a pet onto the stock Ranger without adding some ability for the beast itself. You could make it a positional thing, where you gain some benefit if you attack the thing the beast is engaged with, or allies get a benefit for attacking the thing the beast is engaged with. Maybe the beast could have its own mark? Or just flatout let it attack on its own. I guess you could break it down even further and ask, is a Beastmaster supposed to be DPS, support, controller, or tank? And if so, which part is the pet doing and which part is the Ranger doing? Are they both the same, or are they doing different roles? Basically it's like if you took the Essentials Sentinel and put actual thought into it
P.d0t fucked around with this message at 09:04 on Aug 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 08:58
|
|
|
Another important question is, can the beast be attacked, and if so, how much damage can it take? My initial instinct would be to go "Yes, the pet can be attacked, and a single successful hit against it takes it out for that combat," as the beast runs away or faints or whatever. However, if the Beastmaster's bread and butter is the ability to use the pet as the source of its attacks, it's a bit lovely, because a single attack from an enemy can potentially lock down one of your abilities for the rest of the combat. The other option I'm thinking of is the beast and the Ranger having a shared pool of hit points: when the beast takes damage, the Ranger takes damage. However, that's also weird: an enemy hits your pet so hard that YOU get taken down. Actually, going with option number 1 is probably the best: you just have to word the Beastmaster's Twin Strike in such a way that you CAN use your beast to make the other attack from your Twin Strike, but you don't have to. Your pet being taken out means that you're limited to using vanilla Twin Strike, but you lose out on whatever other benefit your pet gives you. The pet being able to have its own mark sounds about right on the surface: unlike the Hunter and the Scout you don't get a boost to your Hunter's Mark ability, and if your pet goes down you can still act as a vanilla no-archetype Ranger for all intents and purposes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
Actually, an interesting thought might be something like "you can force an attack targetted at your pet/you to instead target you/your pet." That would make it easier to do the "one-hit pet" I think. On that note, summons should probably function similar to Simple Monsters; building them off of Class Dice might be clunky.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 09:24
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:This might sound stupid, but what if you did this class as a Cleric? Nah, it's broad enough you can pretty much flavor it any way you like imo. I was just using Warlord/Priest 'cause those seemed like terms everyone knew; thematically they clash and changing warlord to fit under a Cleric umbrella is a good idea. On another note, changed a little of the Druid (Shapechanger) from before; High Ground was basically what I was going for with the Eagle form. Changed the skills so that it doesn't benefit from Advantage on everything, but I'm noticing a couple things with skill math. Mainly, it's that every class seems to hover ~50% success rate (that is, getting a result >= 15) for their class skills (except for Paladins and Warriors attempting Proficient skills). Below that there's the 10-14 "dead zone" where nothing much happens. I'd consider changing up the skill resolution with just 3 tiers: 1-10 is failure (setback), 11-15 is success with cost (i.e. you spot the Hidden ninja, but have Disadvantage against it for your next attack), >15 is absolute success. Maybe to avoid slowing down gameplay coming up with 11-15 "costs" on-the-fly, there's just a set cost for each combat application of a skill. Then outside of combat the player/gm can narrate whatever as necessary. Also, Rogue sorta interacts with other classes in weird ways: attempting a skill outside its own list from the Mage or Ranger list gets it +1d6+1d4 (or 1d8, or both), which puts it's chance of success higher than theirs, even considering Advantage (stats from Anydice). Even without buffs, Rogue is arguably as good or better at non-class skills than its own class skills (worse at hitting the 10-14 zone, ~even at hitting at least 15-16, and a greater chance of hitting at least 17 or more).
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Mainly, it's that every class seems to hover ~50% success rate (that is, getting a result >= 15) for their class skills (except for Paladins and Warriors attempting Proficient skills). Below that there's the 10-14 "dead zone" where nothing much happens. I noticed this too from the playtest- 50% seems too low for things you're supposed to be good at, and the 10-14 "No change" results lead to pretty dull situations. In general, I think "it happens but you have a new problem to deal with" is way more interesting than "Nothing happens". If you want to keep the success threshold around 15, I also sorta think every class should get Advantage + Class Die on their Class Skills. It just feels harsh to only be able to succeed at something you're supposedly pretty good at 50% of the time. This would require some reworking of each class's Proficient skill, but maybe you could circumvent that by giving each Class one Basic Skill that they can help other players with. For example, Ranger could add their Class Die to other players' WIS checks and Warrior could add their Class Die to other players' FORT checks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Yeah I kinda prefer the approach of "stick with Advantage but lower the DC to 10." The skill success rate/scale thingy was just slapped together based on d20+Class Die, which was then modified to 2d20k1 because it works out about the same, and I had added in too many clunky interactions and it had gotten dumb I'm not really sure of what would be a good way to use Class Dice in general, w/r/t skills. Like, the Rogue thing is admittedly kinda lazy/dumb. I don't mind when a Ranger and a Mage stack some dice onto someone else, because the cross-section of overlapping skills is probably narrow, although it probably ~feels~ dumb/wrong to have the crappy person at a particular skill ultimately have the best chance of success (but, teamwork! ). Having Class Die just straight-up added to your skills all the time doesn't rub me the right way -- because of the disparity from class to class -- but maybe it isn't a huge deal.The "success at a cost" is a good idea, i think, particularly if it's tied to the skill being used, and has some standard/reliable results that are quick to resolve, as Generic Octopus has suggested.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
Possible Skill Changes A thought that I had recently, was to do more with proficient skills. What if class skills were rolled at Advantage, but proficient skills worked like this:
I'm thinking it would work similarly to how it is now (classes with larger dice would have fewer proficient skills, smaller ones would be proficient with most/all of their class skills, plus have Expertise on the Class Die roll, for example.) The only problem is I have no idea how to model this using https://www.anydice.com and doing it by hand would be fairly tedious. Warrior Change? I think the current rules where the Warrior can choose to Power Attack after making their attack roll AND can use their Superiority Die in place of one of the trade-off rolls is probably redundant. It makes Power Attack almost a no-lose proposition, which effectively doubles the damage of their basic attacks, and that's before adding on the benefits of Rage and/or Cleave. I think I might want to axe the benefit to Power Attack, but keep the Superiority Die option. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Possible Skill Changes This seems to model what you're after; anydice doesn't have that robust a code library so usually you have to write your own bits, as in this case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:This seems to model what you're after; anydice doesn't have that robust a code library so usually you have to write your own bits, as in this case. Hmm, it looks like if you slap Expertise onto the Class Die and d20 for d6 and d4, the ranges start to get sorta close to being even (assuming using the current scale of 1-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20+ for skill checks)
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Apropos of nothing, how does this sound to people?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
First draft of the Monk is up! Let me know your thoughts, particularly if anything seems overpowered (specifically in comparison to what another class can currently do; Rogue, Ranger particularly)
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
First draft of the Mystic is up! Not sure the utility for this class is where it needs to be, and the fluff is a little asymmetrical, but I like it mechanically; it's sort of a Mage/Rogue mashup.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
Only 2 real concerns: first is the quantity of basic attacks, second is the Martial Artist's survivability. With the attacks thing, you're attacking 3-4 times (potential 6-8 for a ki master) probably. Consider that, using Power Attack, these attacks can deal 2d4 per hit (or 1-9 per miss, since they're basic), and the total damage gets quite high. Also, is the Ki Master's basic attack(s) from spending ki meant to be strictly melee, or does the wording mean it can be ranged (i.e. ki blasts)? The ki master has a cool thing for surviving as a d4 class since it can Defend basically for free, but the martial artist sits at ~45% success chance against things that aren't its grapple target. For a melee class with 4 hp, that seems kinda dangerous. Maybe in practice it'd work out better by taking advantage of things like High Ground, the numbers just concerned me a little. Maybe ditch the "spend ki whenever" part. I mean it's a neat thing to be able to do, but it might slow things down if the player has those floating options between turns. Looks cool. Unsure if E.Blast is meant to stack extra damage if you use it all against 1 target.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:
I like the class overall, but the Ki Master looks way more versatile and powerful than the Martial Artist. The Martial Artist has a bunch of tricks to direct the flow of combat in melee, but doesn't have any skills to help survive there. Meanwhile the Ki Master has better baseline survivability and can choose to make (on average) 3 defense rolls with advantage on both dice, three extra attacks, or any combination of the two. I'd consider swapping the two archetypes' Perfect Defense abilities. You may also want to remove "basic attack" from the Ki Master's list of options for Ki points. How do you see Blindfighting working? We've only fought a hidden enemy once in the playtest, but we didn't know that monster was present until we used a Detection skill check to see it. Would Martial Artist players be told whether there are hidden enemies or not at the start of combat? P.d0t posted:
This class is absolutely awesome. Warlock is my favorite archetype in the game at this point. I agree about clarifying Eldritch Blast's wording regarding a single target though. Can you target the same enemy with every blast for a huge damage spike?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
Jimmeeee posted:Meanwhile the Ki Master has better baseline survivability and can choose to make (on average) 3 defense rolls with advantage on both dice, three extra attacks, or any combination of the two. It's better than that; the way it's written, it's 1 ki to Defend, which lasts until the monk takes another action (Defend is a Sustained effect). So it can effectively have advantage on defense rolls at all times.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:It's better than that; the way it's written, it's 1 ki to Defend, which lasts until the monk takes another action (Defend is a Sustained effect). So it can effectively have advantage on defense rolls at all times. Whoa, you're right. So the Ki Master will basically always have a 70% chance to dodge an attack, and has a 25% chance of blocking ~3 damage whenever an attack does get through. P.d0t's mentioned that most enemies' attacks will only hit for 1-3 HP, so the Ki Master has about a 78% chance of avoiding the damage from a given attack. That seems a little extreme, even if it is a very cool representation of the "wise Ki sage can dodge anything" trope.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Jimmeeee posted:Whoa, you're right. So the Ki Master will basically always have a 70% chance to dodge an attack, and has a 25% chance of blocking ~3 damage whenever an attack does get through. P.d0t's mentioned that most enemies' attacks will only hit for 1-3 HP, so the Ki Master has about a 78% chance of avoiding the damage from a given attack. That seems a little extreme, even if it is a very cool representation of the "wise Ki sage can dodge anything" trope. Keep in mind this is also a class that's gonna have 4 HP
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:With the attacks thing, you're attacking 3-4 times (potential 6-8 for a ki master) probably. Consider that, using Power Attack, these attacks can deal 2d4 per hit (or 1-9 per miss, since they're basic), and the total damage gets quite high. Also, is the Ki Master's basic attack(s) from spending ki meant to be strictly melee, or does the wording mean it can be ranged (i.e. ki blasts)? 1. Ki attacks are intended to be able to do hadoukens, or just throw an axe, or whatever; it doesn't have to be melee. 2. Might have to cap the Ki spending to "maximum of 1 per each action type." I mean, the intent/thought is that a Ki Master will probably have to be using 1 to Defend, all the time, but there's nothing preventing them from just attack attack attacking. 3. If we say 6 attacks, half get miss damage and half hit with power attack... carry the 1... Yeah that's a lot of damage! Might have to change it to an Iconic attack, but keep the Ki usage as a basic attack. The other thing is with no native Advantage on basic attacks, plus having to declare it before, Power Attacking might not be a great option (although the penalty will always be very low, at least) Generic Octopus posted:The ki master has a cool thing for surviving as a d4 class since it can Defend basically for free, but the martial artist sits at ~45% success chance against things that aren't its grapple target. For a melee class with 4 hp, that seems kinda dangerous. Maybe in practice it'd work out better by taking advantage of things like High Ground, the numbers just concerned me a little. Generic Octopus posted:Looks cool. Unsure if E.Blast is meant to stack extra damage if you use it all against 1 target. Is there a better way to phrase this? Jimmeeee posted:I like the class overall, but the Ki Master looks way more versatile and powerful than the Martial Artist. The Martial Artist has a bunch of tricks to direct the flow of combat in melee, but doesn't have any skills to help survive there. Meanwhile the Ki Master has better baseline survivability and can choose to make (on average) 3 defense rolls with advantage on both dice, three extra attacks, or any combination of the two. I'd consider swapping the two archetypes' Perfect Defense abilities. You may also want to remove "basic attack" from the Ki Master's list of options for Ki points. Jimmeeee posted:How do you see Blindfighting working? We've only fought a hidden enemy once in the playtest, but we didn't know that monster was present until we used a Detection skill check to see it. Would Martial Artist players be told whether there are hidden enemies or not at the start of combat? RAW, it's pretty much "you know of any/all Hidden enemies that are around." So while normally someone would have to spend an Action to do Perception, thus revealing the Hidden thing to the whole party on a successful check (unless they have something that lets them Use a Skill as no-action), the Martial Artist can save on action economy and just punch the thing, but the allies don't know where it is. Also, if something is revealed and becomes Hidden again, the Martial Artist still knows where it is, in case that's unclear(?) P.d0t fucked around with this message at 07:03 on Aug 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 11:38 |
|
|
P.d0t posted:"Each enemy you successfully attack with this ability takes extra damage equal to the result of this die roll." is meant to convey that even if you attack an enemy more than once (which you totally can, with this ability), the extra damage is only stacked once per enemy, so you can focus fire on one guy, but you get a bit of a damage boost if you spread the attacks around instead. Nah, I mean, it says exactly that. I've just played with enough people who sometimes skim the ability without reading it completely (and done it often enough myself) that I thought it might be a potential source of confusion. Maybe just a note in parentheses or the margin, or change the line slightly to something like: "Successful attacks with this ability deal extra damage equal to the result of this die roll (an enemy can only take this extra damage once per Eldritch Blast)." P.d0t posted:In no particular order: Only idea I have besides changing the attacks to iconic is to change the core ability from melee only, and then maybe swap the attack Ki option with "gain advantage for attacks this turn." My kneejerk reaction is that sounds too good but I haven't run any math on it. The thing with Power Attack on a d4 class is, the miss damage is gonna be ~the same as the hit damage. Honestly I think it's an example of the miss damage rule working to make an effective "striker" d4 class, so I probably wouldn't change Monk/Ki Master too much in that regard. Just fiddle with the # of basic attacks, I think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 15:49
|
|