|
1 year ago ::
Jun 05, 2012 - 10:07AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
There is a thread discussing spell format over in the packet discussion forum, and it got me thinking. Why not use concise wording in all spells and features that can directly be translated into mechanics? By keeping the raw mechanics separate from the descriptions, it makes it significantly easier to swap rules sets in and out to support your style of play. I know this was attempted in other editions (especially 4e), but the attempt was so poor, I'd rather just say it wasn't done to save WotC some face.
In the other thread, I suggested using terms like "light fire damage", "short cone", etc. These can then be mapped directly to mechanics. Here's the example from the other thread (slightly modified):
Burning Hands
level 1 evocation (fire)
You evoke flames in a short cone originating from you, causing light fire damage to affected targets.
Implied rules:
light damage = d4+magic mod
short cone = 15' at end, 15' long. This could be easily tailored to use the metric system instead.
cone shape, elemental damage = dex save to avoid for half damage, perhaps penalty for being engulfed completely.
fire damage = sets fire to unattended objects.
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 05, 2012 - 10:09AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
I like because some modules could exist to change the meaning of these special words.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 5:58AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
Almost a day and no one else has a comment on this idea?
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 6:13AM
#4
|
|
|
I like the idea.
The format for Vancian spells has typically been 'loose'. It makes sense I think to have *key* words in the text. It would tighten up the format a bit and as mentioned, makes it more modular.
I hope for Vancian to make a comeback, and the easier it is to work with, the better.
/\ Art
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 6:31AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
May 23, 2012
|
There is a thread discussing spell format over in the packet discussion forum, and it got me thinking. Why not use concise wording in all spells and features that can directly be translated into mechanics? By keeping the raw mechanics separate from the descriptions, it makes it significantly easier to swap rules sets in and out to support your style of play. I know this was attempted in other editions (especially 4e), but the attempt was so poor, I'd rather just say it wasn't done to save WotC some face.
In the other thread, I suggested using terms like "light fire damage", "short cone", etc. These can then be mapped directly to mechanics. Here's the example from the other thread (slightly modified):
Burning Hands
level 1 evocation (fire)
You evoke flames in a short cone originating from you, causing light fire damage to affected targets.
Implied rules:
light damage = d4+magic mod
short cone = 15' at end, 15' long. This could be easily tailored to use the metric system instead.
cone shape, elemental damage = dex save to avoid for half damage, perhaps penalty for being engulfed completely.
fire damage = sets fire to unattended objects.
I like your idea of implied spell rules but sometimes the range is touch so you have to always list range for every spell. Here are the fire based spells I'm working on.Light Upevocation/class lvl 1/encounter/You outline one foe in an aura of light even if invisible. The foe takes a Stealth -10 penalty./int vs int/reroll to maintain/As a free action, you create an adjustable radius of light for the party. Fire Balltargets 1 foe/evocation/class lvl 1/at-will/ranged 6/12/int vs dex/You shoot a fire ball doing int mod+1d6 fire damage+ongoing 3 damage./target's con vs your int ends/2 targets at 11th, 3 targets 21st lvl Burning Handevocation/class lvl 2/ at-will/int vs ac/You strike with your fire aura staff, dagger or wand doing 1[w]+int mod+1d6 fire damage+ongoing 3 damage./target's con vs your int ends Explosive Runeevocation/class lvl 3/ encounter/ranged 6/12 burst 2/int vs dex/You send a steel ball with a fire rune scroll on it that explodes and does int mod+1d6 fire damage+ongoing 3 damage./target's con vs your int ends Combust Foeevocation/class lvl 4/ encounter/ranged 6/12/int vs int/You cause 1 foe int mod+1d6 fire damage+ongoing 3 damage./target's con vs your int ends
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 2:07PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
I think you are misunderstanding the intent I'm proposing. There should be no actual mechanics (ie math) in the description for a given spell/feature. Instead, use relative words that can mapped to a modular set of mechanics. All spells/effects that inflict damage will be described as causing "[light/moderate/severe/critical] [damage type] damage". All ranges will be described as short, medium, long, within reach, etc. The exact wording is less important than consistant wording.
This does to huge things: it makes the swap between metric and empirical systems seemless, and allows a straight-forward way to balance these effects. Maybe all level 1 spells do light damage, unless they do a status effect instead. Level 2 could do moderate damage, or light damage and an effect, etc. It will take a bit of time to find the right balance, but this approach allows for significant granularity of spells and spell-like effects.
Keep in mind, weapons can also be described using generic relative terms. There isn't much than can't be done this way.
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 2:29PM
#7
|
|
|
Do you mean using code words, or key words? Say the fluff of a spell says it does 'light' damage. That general term could mean specific things depending on which system is being used (say Vancian or AEDU).
/\ Art
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 2:44PM
#8
|
|
|
I was about to ask how many terms you plan on coming up with to replace numbers, thinking that there's circa 4 different amounts of damage each spell level that vary depending on how it hits. (all in an area might be low, while touch attack would be high.) But then thinking about that gave me an idea.
Make the damage done with low/medium/high depend on level then assign a die to it.
low = d4.
Medium = d6.
High = d8.
Then, flat out say the amount of dice you use equals level + 1. (Cantrips count as lvl 0.) So, saying burning hands does low damage + mod means 2d4 + mod because it's a level 1 spell. Done this way, you don't have to have any special text for powering up lower level spells with higher level slots. Burning hands in a 2nd level spell slot would do 3d4 + mod because it's a level 2 spell.
Although, the math is probably crazy off. But it's still a neat idea.
What I think the Wilder Design Goals should be. Psionic Homebrew Mk2! Changed core, Focus Points, Psionic Potentials, stuff! Very basic core stuff. :P Homebrew Psionics blog posts archive: Spoiler:
Show
UPDATED Dec/18/2012: BAMN! Random update with a modest amount of hard rules for Animal Affinity, Telepathy, and Telekinesis. ADDED: Discipline Burn and more "soft" ideas.
Dec/13/2012: Small Psionics Homebrew Update, now that I'm done with Finals.
Really old.
Nov/02/2012:
I'm working on a homebrew Wilder, and so a homebrew Psionics system. Here's a 3 part post with info on where I am in the design process.
Part 1, Hard rules/example soulknife discipline: Link.
Part 2, Basic ideas/goals on basic numbers and classes: Link.
Part 3, Direction/ideas I want to take with specific disciplines: Link.:3
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 2:59PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
Do you mean using code words, or key words? Say the fluff of a spell says it does 'light' damage. That general term could mean specific things depending on which system is being used (say Vancian or AEDU).
Precisely. Use key words that fit well into a prose-style layout. It's essentially the same as looking at a word problem in math and building the formula based on the the keywords you see.
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 06, 2012 - 3:00PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
Why?
Why not have the mechanics laid out clearly instead of layering an obscuring language code over them?
|
|
|
