Author Topic: EOI: The Last Great Character Optimisation Project.  (Read 16741 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Caedrus

  • Domesticated Capuchin Monkey
  • **
  • Posts: 100
EOI: The Last Great Character Optimisation Project.
« on: August 23, 2009, 05:38:02 AM »
I have a question - a request, perhaps - for all Character Optimisers. But first, a short perspective. It's possibly more of a rant. Please bear with me.

D&D, in it's current form, is fundamentally flawed. It is flawed, not due to the D20 mechanic (which I actually think is quite good), nor specifically due to Vancian magic, nor specifically due to any one mechanic, for that matter.

It is flawed due to the nature of the commercial beast, a beast which requires, as it's business model, to create a new system, then churn out as many books as possible then collapse the system and repeat the process. It means that, since the system is not designed holistically, then there are entire layers added to what should be (ideally) a gaming mechanic, a rules set, which is set from the word go, rather than a splat-book power creep that requires continual band-aiding.

What I would like is a game system that has everything at the beginning, written by one (team of) authors, with everything available from the outset. Nothing added later (such as skill tricks, maneuvres, etc). D&D 3.5 is complete, now - there's nothing WotC-supported coming out for it, any more - so here's my question:

Is there enough community interest - that is, are you interested - in creating a public work that essentially recreates 3.5, but with every loophole closed, every flawed mechanic fixed?


There are lots of folks out there - I mention Frank Trollman and K as being at the forefront in this area, but there are certainly others, on this board and many others - that have done excellent work in fixing many of these problems.

Is it worthwhile to even try to get a consensus on what the best system would be? Or, simply, am I trying to, for want of a better phrase, herd cats?

I was thinking of creating a wiki, to create "D&D 3.Albatross", or whatever system it would be named, but I shan't bother if there isn't a fairly strong bit of support.

So, there it is - would you be interested?

And secondly - would you recognise it, even if it created rules that you didn't agree with?

Explanatory Requests & Notes:

1. Please don't turn this thread into a debate over the WotC business model.
2. I recognise the inherent irony in turning to the Optimisation Boards first, being as this board is the one most likely to enjoy a poorly designed rule. I come here because (1) it's the board I visit the most; and (2) I honestly believe that the greatest concentration of rules knowledge is right here. This is where the people who know game mechanics live, in my opinion (which is why it isn;t posted elsewhere - it potentially will be, soon).
3. I believe that I am adequate in recognising good and bad game design. From the outset, I claim to be competent, but not an expert.
4. The reason why I think that we should use 3.5 as our basis, rather than creating from whole cloth, is to recognise a fan base, and to allow for a transfer of gameplay and game mechanics, rather than potentially alienating players. I very much recognise that there are a lot of very well designed games, and I would be more than willing to steal whatever mechanic they use, but just using 3.5 as a base. So, please, don't turn this thread into a "You should just ditch the whole d20 system and use [X] system - it's so much better". The aim would be to evolve, not to start a whole new species.
5. Those who have already done (mostly excellent) work on variants would be very welcome to join - I am just after expressions of interest in a more formal series of rules, albeit something that WotC would never recognise.
6. I have deliberately not placed a lot of detail here - the idea is for an expression of interest and how realistic such an objective is.

What do you think?

C.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2009, 05:39:35 AM by Caedrus »
Goodnight, Gentlemen; and Thank You.

KellKheraptis

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2668
  • What's the matter? I thought you had me...
    • Email
Re: EOI: The Last Great Character Optimisation Project.
« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2009, 06:13:20 AM »
It's a similar note, so I'll mention it for posterity's sake ; Dicefreaks has similar threads for Pathfinder rules revisions (basically the stuff PF hasn't gotten to yet), and those threads were at least last I knew, still active after starting roughly a year ago.  The type of work this entails, to put it into Diablo terms (since I imagine 90% of you at some time played Diablo or D2 or LoD), would be akin to a massive content patch, not unlike 1.10, where the entire mechanics changed for a lot of things.  Not just a nerfed class here and a tweaked one there, but the entire algorythm for almost every mechanic available to characters underwent revision.  Obviously this sort of sweeping patch wouldn't be needed for everything, and there is little do be done to reduce some classes short of making them completely unattractive to players (i.e. make a sorc vancian = getting hit in the face with a pop bottle by the sorc player after he prepares "Nuke Your Game").

That semi-rant of agreement and interest in working with you on it aside, what would you say are the top 10 culprits, and what sources would you say are available?  I would envision this project to be a full scope sort of deal : if a mechanic works from say, Arcana Evolved, use it (so long as it's OGC) and credit it.  All campaign settings should follow the same ruleset, and should all be available across settings, if it is all to be under the same umbrella.  Plane shift effectively renders all setting specific material moot, especially combined with retraining.  The pantheons can all be compiled, and the gods themselves IMO remade (and their aquisition of HD in general for that matter, as I see all of them having a minimum of d8's regardless of class levels, with good BAB and Saves and 8+Int skills, as outsiders).  Last but not least, a good deal of classes will need a good bit of work to bring them up to power with everyone else.  Particularly compiling all the variants will be a chore in and of itself. 

All for now, but I'll keep an eye on this thread and contribute what I can.

~Kell
BG's Resident Black Hatter
The Mango List Reborn!
My Warmage Trickery (coming soon!)
My PrC Pally Trickery (coming soon!)
The D&D Archive
-Work in progress!

dark_samuari

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1024
    • Email
Re: EOI: The Last Great Character Optimisation Project.
« Reply #2 on: August 23, 2009, 08:09:01 AM »
Last but not least, a good deal of classes will need a good bit of work to bring them up to power with everyone else.  Particularly compiling all the variants will be a chore in and of itself.

This one concerns me because of intrinsic flavor issues in regards to the fantasy realm. I think if we go in with a perspective of making classes balanced by judging how they can contribute towards an adventure than it might work well.

But to say a warrior should be equal to mage is ludicrous.   

PlzBreakMyCampaign

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1373
  • Immune to Critical Hits as a Fairness Elemental
Re: EOI: The Last Great Character Optimisation Project.
« Reply #3 on: August 23, 2009, 09:18:19 AM »
Having a mostly kept up to date Dirty Trick Handbook Fixes thread, I am of course interested.

The OP needs to specify more. It seems like this is to correct book creep. I like lots of material. I'll even (try) to dig up dragon or dungeon mags for stuff. How exactly do you want book creep fixed? Are tiers okay? How 'broken' does something have to be before it is fixed?

I'm listening
[Spoiler]
Quote
An interesting read, nice to see a civil discussion
The point of Spell Resistance is to make it harder to get buffed.
And healed. Don't forget that.
Huge amounts of people are fuckwits. That doesn't mean that fuckwit is a valid lifestyle.
[/Spoiler]

Old Geezer's Law of Hobby Taste: The more objectively inconsequential a hobby is, the more disagreements within the community will be expressed in outrageously insulting, overblown, and ludicrously emotionally laden terms.

More Funny than Humble[Spoiler]
Quote from: PlzBreakMyCampaign
Your a shifter... you have all you ever need.
It blows MoMF out of the water

But if your greedy for more [Wish] for something that only effects you, like another class level or two that doesn't count against your ECL.
Quote from: hungryhungryhippo987
Yes, I'm the 3.0 "Masters of the Wild" shifter, the awesome kind. My favorite form to take is Force Dragon. Yes, I am immortal ... My character is hands down the coolest guy in the campaign and there is nothing I could possibly want.
PBMC gets a cookie for DotA r

KellKheraptis

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2668
  • What's the matter? I thought you had me...
    • Email
Re: EOI: The Last Great Character Optimisation Project.
« Reply #4 on: August 23, 2009, 02:31:24 PM »
Last but not least, a good deal of classes will need a good bit of work to bring them up to power with everyone else.  Particularly compiling all the variants will be a chore in and of itself.

This one concerns me because of intrinsic flavor issues in regards to the fantasy realm. I think if we go in with a perspective of making classes balanced by judging how they can contribute towards an adventure than it might work well.

But to say a warrior should be equal to mage is ludicrous.   

Don't worry...a warrior will never equal a mage as long as I have a say in it.  I always felt there was a reason in the game that the common folk feared wizards.
BG's Resident Black Hatter
The Mango List Reborn!
My Warmage Trickery (coming soon!)
My PrC Pally Trickery (coming soon!)
The D&D Archive
-Work in progress!

woodenbandman

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2188
    • Email
Re: EOI: The Last Great Character Optimisation Project.
« Reply #5 on: August 23, 2009, 03:23:38 PM »
The main thing that needs to be fixed is the CR system, in my opinion. Everything should be class based, with monster X equal approximately to a class Y of Z level.

Fix the CR system, and you'll probably end up inadvertently fixing the classes.

BowenSilverclaw

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 5337
  • Walking that fine line between genius and insanity
    • Email
Re: EOI: The Last Great Character Optimisation Project.
« Reply #6 on: August 23, 2009, 03:45:19 PM »
Having a mostly kept up to date Dirty Trick Handbook Fixes thread, I am of course interested.

The OP needs to specify more. It seems like this is to correct book creep. I like lots of material. I'll even (try) to dig up dragon or dungeon mags for stuff. How exactly do you want book creep fixed? Are tiers okay? How 'broken' does something have to be before it is fixed?

I'm listening
I'd worry more about the core books than about any splat books.

Aside from that, I'm willing to lend a hand. I'll probably be pretty busy the next year or so, but I'll try to assist wherever I can if this gets of the ground :)
"Weakness? Come test thy mettle against me, hairless ape, and we shall know who is weak!"

Quote from: J0lt
You caught a fish.  It was awesome.   :lol

PhaedrusXY

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8022
  • Advanced Spambot
Re: EOI: The Last Great Character Optimisation Project.
« Reply #7 on: August 23, 2009, 04:04:25 PM »
[spoiler]
A couple of water benders, a dike, a flaming arrow, and a few barrels of blasting jelly?

Sounds like the makings of a gay porn film.
...thanks
[/spoiler]

Agita

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 5465
  • SFT is mai waifu.
Re: EOI: The Last Great Character Optimisation Project.
« Reply #8 on: August 23, 2009, 04:26:31 PM »
Aside from that, I'm willing to lend a hand. I'll probably be pretty busy the next year or so, but I'll try to assist wherever I can if this gets of the ground :)
What he said.
It's all about vision and making reality conform to your vision. By dropping a fucking house on it.

Agita's Awesome Poster Compilation
Lycanthromancer's Awesome Poster Compilation

RobbyPants

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 7139
Re: EOI: The Last Great Character Optimisation Project.
« Reply #9 on: August 23, 2009, 11:12:38 PM »

Is there enough community interest - that is, are you interested - in creating a public work that essentially recreates 3.5, but with every loophole closed, every flawed mechanic fixed?


...


6. I have deliberately not placed a lot of detail here - the idea is for an expression of interest and how realistic such an objective is.
I've always been interested in the idea and have made various smaller changes and fixes to see what I like.  I've always enjoyed tinkering with the game.

As far as your actual question to how realistic it is: every single person that signs on will have their own idea of how this should be done.  A lot of this will be completely subjective in that many ideas will be equally good, albiet different.  The trick is to get everyone on the same page as early as possible, otherwise you'll be fighting amonst yourselves throughout the entire process, slowing it down.  So, if you do see enough potential interset early on, you should probably try to set up some solid design goals to see who is still interested and willing to continue work on the project.  I'd like to see this up to that phase so I can give you a better answer.

Of course, you've already done this once. ;)


Quote
And secondly - would you recognise it, even if it created rules that you didn't agree with?
I'm curious what you mean here.
My balancing 3.5 compendium
Elemental mage test game

Quotes
[spoiler]
Quote from: Cafiend
It is a shame stupidity isn't painful.
Quote from: StormKnight
Totally true.  Historians believe that most past civilizations would have endured for centuries longer if they had successfully determined Batman's alignment.
Quote from: Grand Theft Otto
Why are so many posts on the board the equivalent of " Dear Dr. Crotch, I keep punching myself in the crotch, and my groin hurts... what should I do? How can I make my groin stop hurting?"
Quote from: CryoSilver
I suggest carving "Don't be a dick" into him with a knife.  A dull, rusty knife.  A dull, rusty, bent, flaming knife.
Quote from: Seerow
Fluffy: It's over Steve! I've got the high ground!
Steve: You underestimate my power!
Fluffy: Don't try it, Steve!
Steve: *charges*
Fluffy: *three critical strikes*
Steve: ****
Quote from: claypigeons
I don't even stat out commoners. Commoner = corpse that just isn't a zombie. Yet.
Quote from: CryoSilver
When I think "Old Testament Boots of Peace" I think of a paladin curb-stomping an orc and screaming "Your death brings peace to this land!"
Quote from: Orville_Oaksong
Buy a small country. Or Pelor. Both are good investments.
[/spoiler]

Bauglir

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2346
  • TriOptimum
Re: EOI: The Last Great Character Optimisation Project.
« Reply #10 on: August 23, 2009, 11:29:10 PM »
This is actually something I started thinking about a month or so ago. I realized that, not only did the multitude of books make finding anything a bitch, but the houserules I'd written had gotten too unwieldy for actual play and still did virtually nothing to change power imbalances. It occurred to me that a full-scale rewrite, with everything necessary to play in one place, was the best possible solution, and I've been working on it since then. Not huge amounts of progress as I've not yet devoted much time, due to running a campaign in the meanwhile, but some.

One thing I've noticed from the Vancian magic thread is that having multiple people brainstorm the creation of a system leads to slowdown and (I'd be willing to predict) compromises that end up making the final product something nobody actually wanted. That's not to say I think the thread is a waste of time; it's at the very least going to be a huge font of valuable ideas and knowledge about what it is that's problematic about current casting (as an example of things to rewrite), which is going to be essential to fixing things, but this tangent is going a bit far so I'll get to the point. If we do this, I'd recommend that individuals write up the mechanics of their systems (so someone who's got an idea for grappling, for instance, might submit a grapple system). Not details like individual spells, but the actual workings of the system. Then, as a group, we pick from those submitted, discuss tweaks to the basic submitted system, and work to integrate the ideas into one another.

One thing, though, is that I completely disagree with this:
Last but not least, a good deal of classes will need a good bit of work to bring them up to power with everyone else.  Particularly compiling all the variants will be a chore in and of itself.

This one concerns me because of intrinsic flavor issues in regards to the fantasy realm. I think if we go in with a perspective of making classes balanced by judging how they can contribute towards an adventure than it might work well.

But to say a warrior should be equal to mage is ludicrous.   

Don't worry...a warrior will never equal a mage as long as I have a say in it.  I always felt there was a reason in the game that the common folk feared wizards.

A warrior of the same level as the wizard SHOULD be that wizard's equal. Not in terms of, say, hand to hand combat, but as characters overall? That fighter should absolutely have a 50% shot of winning. Balancing against monsters is important, but it's equally important to realize that eventually, the party IS going to fight that enemy Fighter/Wizard/Whatever, so you DO have to keep class-class balance in mind. To go into this with the premise that a caster ought to be better than a warrior is just going to lead to the same old problem of, "Why not just play a goddamn party of Druids?"

As a slightly more specific list, elements that ought to be kept: levels, skills, feats. These should be the basic ways of customizing characters, but the actual details of them need fixing. Magic items need a total overhaul and probably need to be rethought from the ground up both in terms of what they can do AND what they're going to cost a character. Nothing else really comes to mind offhand.
So you end up stuck in an endless loop, unable to act, forever.

In retrospect, much like Keanu Reeves.

dark_samuari

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1024
    • Email
Re: EOI: The Last Great Character Optimisation Project.
« Reply #11 on: August 24, 2009, 12:16:33 AM »
A warrior of the same level as the wizard SHOULD be that wizard's equal. Not in terms of, say, hand to hand combat, but as characters overall? That fighter should absolutely have a 50% shot of winning. Balancing against monsters is important, but it's equally important to realize that eventually, the party IS going to fight that enemy Fighter/Wizard/Whatever, so you DO have to keep class-class balance in mind. To go into this with the premise that a caster ought to be better than a warrior is just going to lead to the same old problem of, "Why not just play a goddamn party of Druids?"

And I'd agree in terms of what they can bring to an adventure but in pure power terms you begin to sacrifice the genre for game balance. So perhaps we need to clarify what type of DnD we're going for this in regards to game balance. Do we want high fantasy or low fantasy. If we were to go with low fantasy than a warrior begins to match a wizard much better (I'm accepting low fantasy as Conan the Barbarian or the Scorpion King for examples). 

Bauglir

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2346
  • TriOptimum
Re: EOI: The Last Great Character Optimisation Project.
« Reply #12 on: August 24, 2009, 12:43:35 AM »
I'm not exactly sure about that. If you want "more powerful wizards", then what that means is that there are more high level wizards running around than high level fighters, nothing more. It shouldn't make any difference with the power of the actual class.
So you end up stuck in an endless loop, unable to act, forever.

In retrospect, much like Keanu Reeves.

dark_samuari

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1024
    • Email
Re: EOI: The Last Great Character Optimisation Project.
« Reply #13 on: August 24, 2009, 01:01:25 AM »
I'm not exactly sure about that. If you want "more powerful wizards", then what that means is that there are more high level wizards running around than high level fighters, nothing more. It shouldn't make any difference with the power of the actual class.

So are you speaking on making warrior classes more mechanically solid (like the warblade) as opposed to making them more powerful (granting them more base power-strength)?

Bauglir

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2346
  • TriOptimum
Re: EOI: The Last Great Character Optimisation Project.
« Reply #14 on: August 24, 2009, 01:32:40 AM »
Yes.

Or, in long form, the Warblade did both of those things. I'm getting too specific, but my premise for designing a system is that each class ought to be as powerful as every other class is, inherently. If the DM wants to run a world in which wizards are powerful and feared, then NPC wizards should be higher level on average than NPC fighters. Why that is might be due to any number of factors; a wizard cabal grants special power to official members, fighters have a higher mortality rate and thus don't live as long, etc. There's better ways of achieving the same fluff than making the classes inherently unbalanced. PC wizards would be apprentices or such until they reach levels where the fighters are considered legendary heroes in such campaigns, or maybe their powers have been reduced from some arcane accident, or something else that explains why they're not as powerful as many other wizards. "More powerful than everyone else", by the way, is not a valid character concept in my mind, which is why I don't see the need to support it with a class that's more powerful than the other classes.

EDIT: This is what I meant by my comment on the Vancian magic thread, and I'm going to drop it here because I just realized I'm hijacking Caedrus' thread. Feel free to start a new thread, or get the last word in here, or take your pick of any other option. It's all good as far as I'm concerned.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2009, 01:35:47 AM by Bauglir »
So you end up stuck in an endless loop, unable to act, forever.

In retrospect, much like Keanu Reeves.

Caedrus

  • Domesticated Capuchin Monkey
  • **
  • Posts: 100
Re: EOI: The Last Great Character Optimisation Project.
« Reply #15 on: August 24, 2009, 06:56:19 AM »
You know, I have been intrigued by the responses since I started this thread only yesterday. I will give my responses, and few perspectives and a few thoughts.

@Robbypants: When I said 'Would you recognise it, even if it created rules that you didn't agree with?", what I meant was, in essence: "Well, we've all collaborated for a year on a set of rules, but the one thing that you felt needed fixing didn't get fixed / didn't (to the majority) need fixing / was fixed in a method that wasn't your suggested method - would you still use the rules, or would you write them off as houserule hackery?" (By you, of course, I mean any specific individual, and I apologise for unsubtle phrasology).

Regarding Balance: I think that D&D has to be very careful about balance. When balance is given priority over individual class flavour, the (forgive me my opinion here) blandness of 4th Edition results. When class flavour is given priority ("let's make wizards uber-cool!"), then the imbalances of 3.5 result. My opinion: it's a delicate balance. Your views may vary, and I'm open to courteous debate on the subject.

I've been intrigued and inspired, so far. Truth be told, this is such a massive undertaking, it would have to be a community event, really, and for that I am appreciative of those who have shown interest. I was thinking that a wiki would be the best way to approach the problem (and I have already created one in preparation), but gauging interest at first seemed like a good idea.

I'll be honest - I don't know the best way to attack the problem, other than cohesively, and ensuring the mechanics mesh well. Is it best to create an alternate rule? Or to say "What are the worst X rules in the game?", or "Who has a great way to patch up the fighter?"

There's no best way, in my opinion. I think that the method doesn't matter as much as the result, and the result would be, honestly, an online rules set, agreed upon by the majority of a knowledgable, experienced and enthusiastic representative group of D&D players and DMs (most assuredly DMs!). This rules set would be easy to adapt to the existing D&D 3.5 rules set, be immediately identifiable as that amorphous creature we call D&D, and would be (as far as possible), that near impossible balance of simple and realistic. In the words of Jeremy Clarkson, how hard can it be? (Text never translates personality well. The tone I am trying to evoke here is enthusiasm while recognising the inherent vast diffculty).

Just while I am here, I am present to you, an example new rules set. At the outset, I would like to make a few things clear:

(1) I am not saying "this would be one of the rules!";
(2) I don't think there should be, as much as possible, one person saying "this is the way the rule should be!" (group recognition has a stronger following);
(3) I present this idea as one method by which we, as a community could discuss a rule or concept;
(4) This rule doesn't represent, specifically, the method by which the rules could or would be changed, or the 'direction' that the game would, could or should take; for many, many rules, modification would be a better method than 'let's change how the rule works!"
(5) I don't know if this has been suggested before; if so, any plagiarism is unintended.
(5) Warranty is voided if used in a method other than that intended.
(6) To be used in conjunction with regular exercise.

Discussion 1: Feats

Problem: Not all feats are created equal. Given a choice between Brachiation and Divine Metamagic, there are very few circumstances where a character will take the former, even if the entire campaign takes place in a jungle.

Problem: Prerequisites are often used as a gatekeeper mechanism to get access to more powerful feats. Would you be likely to take Mobility, except as a precursor to Spring Attack?

Solution: Every level, a character gains a Feat Point. Feat Points can be saved, if required, for later use, or retrained. Feats are purchased. The more powerful the feat, the more feat points you need to purchase it. The only prerequisites for a feat are those that power the feat (before Divine Metamagic, you need the metamagic feat which it powers), or physical scores (Strength 13+ for Power Attack), or potentially skill ranks.

Note: At 1st level, characters receive a bonus two Feat Points, bringing their total to 3 FPs.
Note: At 1st level,humans receive a bonus three Feat Points.
Note: A Flaw would give you a number of Feat Points.
Note: Retraining allows you to get a refund for feat(s).
Note: Some classes would still get feats for free. Rangers get Track for free.
NoteNoteExample 1: Vareus is a 1st Level Human Ranger. At 1st Level, he receives 3 FPs, and another 3 FPs for being a human. He takes Simple Weapon Proficiency, Martial Weapon Proficiency, Light Armour Proficiency and Track, because these all cost zero FPs for a Ranger. Now comes the hard part; with a sufficiently high Strength, he could easily buy both Power Attack (3 FPs) and Cleave (3 FPs), but Vareus' player really wants both Power Attack and Great Cleave (5 FPs).

It's a pity he can't trade in Track, but he wouldn't get any points for it!

What to do? Should he take the Curious Flaw (-2 to Spot, Listen and Initiative), which would net him those elusive 2 FPs, or should he wait until level 3 to get the next two FPs he needs?

Or should he take Cleave now, and retrain Cleave to Great Cleave at 3rd level? Since Vareus can only retrain one character aspect per level, what if he also wants to retrain his skill points at that level?

Perhaps he should just get rid of Power Attack, get Great Cleave and one cheap feat - Dash (Complete Warrior) adds 5' to movement in light armour, and only costs 1 FP.

Vareus ends up doing this. He can move a little swifter, and if he gets surrounded by light enemies, he can attack many of them, if he 'drops' them.

_________

I repeat: this is just one way of discussing / changing a rule. In case you were wondering, I like the 'Feat Point' rule, but this Project is not about what is your favourite rule, but rather, what is justifiably the best rule.

What do you think?

C.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2009, 07:00:20 AM by Caedrus »
Goodnight, Gentlemen; and Thank You.

RobbyPants

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 7139
Re: EOI: The Last Great Character Optimisation Project.
« Reply #16 on: August 24, 2009, 09:32:01 AM »
What do you think?
I like the basic idea.  It reminds me of 2E's Skills & Powers, which offered more customizable characters.

I agree that not all feats are equal and I like the idea of varying costs.  I also like the same idea about flaws.  The tricky part, or course, is coming up with good costs for everything.  While this approach doesn't stop potentially powerful combinations, it's no different than the current feat system; those issues need to be dealt with by determining of what a character of a particular level should be capable.
My balancing 3.5 compendium
Elemental mage test game

Quotes
[spoiler]
Quote from: Cafiend
It is a shame stupidity isn't painful.
Quote from: StormKnight
Totally true.  Historians believe that most past civilizations would have endured for centuries longer if they had successfully determined Batman's alignment.
Quote from: Grand Theft Otto
Why are so many posts on the board the equivalent of " Dear Dr. Crotch, I keep punching myself in the crotch, and my groin hurts... what should I do? How can I make my groin stop hurting?"
Quote from: CryoSilver
I suggest carving "Don't be a dick" into him with a knife.  A dull, rusty knife.  A dull, rusty, bent, flaming knife.
Quote from: Seerow
Fluffy: It's over Steve! I've got the high ground!
Steve: You underestimate my power!
Fluffy: Don't try it, Steve!
Steve: *charges*
Fluffy: *three critical strikes*
Steve: ****
Quote from: claypigeons
I don't even stat out commoners. Commoner = corpse that just isn't a zombie. Yet.
Quote from: CryoSilver
When I think "Old Testament Boots of Peace" I think of a paladin curb-stomping an orc and screaming "Your death brings peace to this land!"
Quote from: Orville_Oaksong
Buy a small country. Or Pelor. Both are good investments.
[/spoiler]

juton

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 809
  • Jack of all trades, master of nothing.
    • Email
Re: EOI: The Last Great Character Optimisation Project.
« Reply #17 on: August 24, 2009, 10:01:28 AM »
I like the Feats suggestion, it's much easier to just assign costs to feats instead of re-writing the whole lot to be balanced.

One thing that should be declared early in a thread like this is what should stay and what should go. Is a Sorcerer overpowered, underpowered or a bit of both? Don't worry about fixing everything up front, the community needs a (very) rough consensus about where we should be going.

Caedrus

  • Domesticated Capuchin Monkey
  • **
  • Posts: 100
Re: EOI: The Last Great Character Optimisation Project.
« Reply #18 on: August 24, 2009, 10:34:54 AM »
Robbypants & Juton: Thanks for your kind comments. Nice to know some of the ideas are decent, at least.

Juton: I guess the community, so to speak, should decide the extent of the change. There are rules which need to be changed, and rules which can be improved; I think that the best thing to do is to rank which rules, in order, need to be corrected (most in need first), and what would be your suggested method. So, here's a question for you (as in, for everybody):

What's your personal top ten rules (including subrules) which require change? I shall give you mine, but please remember that this is off the top of my head, and I most assuredly reserve the right to change my list as suggestions come in! Remember, these are opinions up for discussion! I'm keen to hear your list!

1. Polymorph. Needs to be completely rewritten to be stable, consistent, and balanced.
2. Metamagic. It needs to be internally balanced.
3. Martial vs. Magic. Balance it to provide more utility for martial characters than as a meat shield, whose abilities and capabilities can be easily matched others classes emulating them through magic. Lots of work to balance.
4. Grappling. A cumbersome mechanic that doesn't provide good realism vs. effort. The rule mechanic needs redrafting.
5. Perception! The act of perceiving requires so much dice rolling - Spot, Listen Search. Why not just one. Seriously, what is lost by combining these?
6. The Worhol Effect. Adventurers should adventure for days at a time, not 15 minutes of fame, rest, then hit it again. The game should focus on sustainability. Travel should be a challenge.
7. Racism. The cornerstone of the character, the race, needs internal balance. Seriously, Diplomancer aside, why would you play a half-elf? The only reason is for roleplaying. There isn;t a strong balance.
8. Epic. Look, the Epic mechanics are so broken they need to be taken out back and shot. At least 4th Edition broached the issue with the 30-level thing.
9. Ambiguity. There are so many rules which people argue are or are not variants. Why not just list what is or is not a variant (what this project is all about, in some ways).
10. Wealth. I think that the escalation of wealth by level is too high.

There are others - crafting mechanics, wild shape, summoning, templates, LA adjustments, ECL guesswork, there are lots. Hell even the economy needs an overhaul, but this is my quite and nasty list.

Note: The word balanced, in this thread, should be defined as: Balanced (adjective): A descriptor which is applied to a set of rules, abilities, statistics or capabilities such that the power of the character is kept in line with the power of other characters of a similar level, understanding that, at different levels, some classes have more power than others. The objective of balance is such that power is, on average, comparable"

Please, do give your feedback, and for those who are considering this undertaking, send a quick message to show if you're keen - likewise, please do give (constructive) criticism if you think this is a waste of time.

C.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2009, 10:36:36 AM by Caedrus »
Goodnight, Gentlemen; and Thank You.

Caelic

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 979
Re: EOI: The Last Great Character Optimisation Project.
« Reply #19 on: August 24, 2009, 10:40:24 AM »
I'm getting too specific, but my premise for designing a system is that each class ought to be as powerful as every other class is, inherently.


I think this is one of the main problems a project like this will face; different people have very different ideas about what constitutes an optimized set of rules.

Bauglir thinks that each class ought to be as powerful as every other class, inherently.  I think pursuing that is both quixotic and ill-advised, and that a far better target is "Every player has as much opportunity for fun as every other player."

Take Ars Magica, for instance.  They dealt with the problem of wizards being more powerful by embracing it.  "Wizards are more powerful.  They're the stars of the campaign, and the game revolves around them."  

Here's the thing, though: EVERY player plays the wizard...sometimes.  Every player has a magus character.  Every player also has a companion--someone highly skilled in his own right, but not a wizard.  Then there are a pool of "Grogs"--spear-carriers, basically--who are held in common.

Who is playing which role rotates.  Sometimes you'll be playing your wizard, and the spotlight will be on you; sometimes, you'll be playing a grog, and very definitely in a supporting role.

Now: would dynamic character balance of this sort work for D&D?  Probably not.  

Instead, I think it would be wise to recognize that a lot of what was thrown out from first and second edition SHOULDN'T have been thrown out.  Fighters were NOT irrelevant in first edition.  Why not?  Because no other character class could do their job.  Clerics didn't have Divine Power.  Wizards couldn't simply Polymorph into vastly-more-powerful frontline fighters.

3.0 and 3.5 embraced the "Characters should be able to do anything" philosophy.  Add optimization, and the result is, "One character can do EVERYTHING."

That's where the game falls apart, plain and simple; there's no inter-party dependency.