Community

Schemes

Every class should get schemes. They can call them something else, for fighters maybe 'fighting styles', wizards maybe 'traditions', clerics could be 'mythos'. They would define those things about the class that are major and hard to define in a background or theme.

Fighter Styles:

• Sword and Board - One handed weapon and sheild. Gets bonuses to one handed weapons and sheild use.
• Two-handed - Gets bonuses to weapons that are weilded in two hands.
• Archery - Gets bonuses to ranged weapons.
• Pets - Gets to train and use a wild animal pet companion

• Vancian - Gets spells slots like the play test Wizard
• AEDU - Gets spells like the AEDU 4E wizard. Spells put into encounter slots lose half the numbuer of damage dice. If they allow a save, you get no effect on a save. If they don't have a save you get a save for half effect. Durations is lowered to 1-2 rounds, area can be smaller by half.
• Spell point - You get a number of spell points equal to the number of spell slot levels you can cast, for instance at level 3 (according to the pay test packet) you get 8 spell slot level (4 1^st and 2 2^nd spell slots). You could cast a total of 8 spell slots worth of spells you have prepared.
• Check chance - You roll a caster check that starts at DC 11 - character level. Each time you cast you add the level of the spell to the chance. So after casting 3 first level spells the DC is 13. After casting 3 first and 2 second your DC is 17. You add your int modifier.

• Sorcerer style spells - Same as play test packet
• AEDU - Get spells like the AEDU 4E cleric.
• Spell Points - see above.
• Check Chance - See above, but instead of subtracting the character level the DM keeps track of how many times you've done things that is for or against your faith and gives you a number to subtract.

Jun 30, 2012 -- 8:38PM, professordaddy wrote:

Let's see, a single, simplified system which can be learned in ten minutes, and modified at will with later modules... ...Or three bastardized, incompatible systems shoehorned together, each of which rewuires much more bookkeeping, and which forces players brand new to tt rpgs to decide which game to play, *after* they thought they'd made that decision by buying the basic game product. Nah.

Agreed.  Which is why we are here trying to change DDN from the playtest state of being "three bastardized, incompatible systems shoehorned together, each of which rewuires much more bookkeeping" and turn it into a system that fans of any edition can enjoy.

Jun 30, 2012 -- 8:58PM, Avric_Tholomyes wrote:

What I'd reccomed is to cut the inherant flavor of the classes, and lean on Backgrounds to do that. Then, make some of the Fighter specializations into Theme/feat options (ie, a "pet" fighter could take a theme that gives them an animal companion, and bonuses to it later on). After that, you can make the Wizard/Cleric options into separate classes. For example a Wizard could be a Vancian caster, and a mage could be an AEDU caster, and a Sorcerer could be a spell-point caster. A Cleric could be 3e Sorcerer-like, and a Warpriest could be AEDU. It might not be the most "efficient" thing, page wise, but it'll make it easier for new players, or people who want to get in and out of character creation very quickly.

How will it be "easier" for new players to contend with picking between two or three entirely mutually exclusive ways of designing their characters, rather than having one?  That would be like claiming it would be "easier" for players who are brand new to football to first have to determine the advantages and disadvantages of American vs. European, NFL vs AFL vs XFL league rules and their varants, *before* they've ever actually played, or even seen, a game.

Simpler is simpler.  More rules, additional math, more bookkeeping, more variants, are all the enemy of simplicity.  Is it certainly possible to argue that the core should be more complex, and many have been making those arguments (and the devs have been responding to them).  But you can't argue that "more complex = easier."

Jun 30, 2012 -- 8:58PM, Avric_Tholomyes wrote:

What I'd reccomed is to cut the inherant flavor of the classes, and lean on Backgrounds to do that. Then, make some of the Fighter specializations into Theme/feat options (ie, a "pet" fighter could take a theme that gives them an animal companion, and bonuses to it later on). After that, you can make the Wizard/Cleric options into separate classes. For example a Wizard could be a Vancian caster, and a mage could be an AEDU caster, and a Sorcerer could be a spell-point caster. A Cleric could be 3e Sorcerer-like, and a Warpriest could be AEDU. It might not be the most "efficient" thing, page wise, but it'll make it easier for new players, or people who want to get in and out of character creation very quickly.

I've explained this in all the wizard threads before, you can't make a sorcerer the only AEDU caster class, because you'll make the sorcerer fans that hate AEDU mad, and you'll make the AEDU wizard fans that hate sorcerers mad. Same if you try to shoe horn it into any other caster class that already has an iconic identity.

The best we can hope for like that is a second wizard class that is functionally identical except for how they gain spell slots and that would just be double work on WotC part.