Community

I post more on ENWorld, but Monte himself told me that this was the place to get noticed by the actual designers, so here goes. This mainly has to do with character creation, because that's REALLY what we're talking about, right?

It might be a long post, just read the concept if you can't be bothered with the whole thing.

Concept: Non-interacting sockets. A character is a series of "sockets", choices and sub-choices that you then plug the next choice into. The socket as I see them are: Race, Action Class, Interaction Class and Theme. The sockets should be non-interacting, meaning that the choice in one socket doesn't make choices of other sockets better or worse and doesn't make the choices within other sockets better or worse. For instance, if a race receives +2 to Dexterity, then if Dexterity is better for one Action Class over another, that would make that combination of race and class better. Making some combinations better than others is the same as limiting choice, so it will be avoided for the most part.

Background. This will be the first step in character creation, from which all your later choices are derived. It is completely fluff. Example backgrounds given, plus a series of questions to guide in making your own background. They can even be as simple as "I'm a guy who swings a sword for money," because, really, you can't FORCE roleplaying.

Races: The standard races are presented pretty much just as an example for the advanced option and the only choices for the most basic option. Probably Dwarf, Elf, Halfing, Human, possibly Half-Orc. Each will have a goodly section on the fluff of the race, as has been done it previous editions, but noting that the fluff may be different in your game and to ask the DM. Each race will have a "default" list of granted abilities. These abilities shouldn't limit choices later on by making anything a better or worse choice. The ideas I see are a sensory ability preferably different for each race, some kind of non-combat ability that doesn't overlap later choices, access to a choice of skill or ability they wouldn't gain from their classes, languages, and a downside like moving slower or being smaller.

Following that list, there will be the race-creation charts. The DM can use this to add more races to the game, or change the example races in a balanced way. As an advanced option, it can also be used by the players to choose any combination of racial traits they think belong to their character based on background and choice of race. The chart will either have all advantages worth the same, or will give you a certain number of points to spend if some advantages are just better than others. Also, a small list of disadvantages, choose 1. A further option to choose additional disadvantages to gain more advantages, along with a note of caution doing so. 

Action Class: Much of how this works will be derived from the 4E model. The idea here is, "How does my character kill stuff?" There are a certain number of basic classes for this and these pretty much detail only stuff that is used in combat, both attack and defenses. The basic classes to include for sure a martial, a divine, an arcane and a sneak. There might be others in the base book, there might be others released later. I envision the martial to have the greatest proficiency with physical damage and the choices to fall along the paths of raw damage and pushing people around. Arcane I would define as focused on destruction, that arcane magic is not well-suited for creation. Its damage will be focused on energy types. It would have choices based on ranged damage and area damage. The divine is expressed as a creative force and would have choices based on creating zones, summoning and buffing/healing. The sneak, unlike the martial, picks out singular targets and makes them dead. They have choices related to debuffing, bonus damage and positioning.

Each of those choices comes with defenses as well, along with choices related to them. I'm not sure if defenses are solely class determined, or if they interact with equipment.

All of the class options come with "fuzzy" descriptions of their abilities. In other words, the ability describes a result, not a method. The player is free to author his own method when choosing an ability. A sneak attack from a rogue could be a dagger applied to a vital spot, or it could be part of the soul being ripped from the enemy. A martial character with a high armor class might describe it a full suit of metal armor, or as simply having too much determination to let a few arrows keep him down.

Interactive Class: This represents the "non-combat" choices for the character, although certainly movement-type abilities could be used in combat. These are better modeled after 3E characters, minus the combat. As there are more ways to interact with the world than there are to kill things, I can see many Interactive Classes offered. To directly build off the action class we could have the fighter, the cleric, the wizard and the rogue. In addition to that we could have the explorer, the scholar, the noble. This class would have a selection of abilities and would provide the class skills for the character. Abilities can be broken down into things that allow you to do something fantastic, like cast a flying spell, and essentially super-skills. A super-skill essentially means you take the skill description and always succeed, or always succeed for a difficulty based on your level. Some classes will have more class skills, some will have more abilities. The idea is to make each feel about the same capability, but in totally different ways. The description of these abilities are "fuzzy" as well, leaving it up to the player to decide if his super-skill at opening locks is a spell, tiny little tools, a swift blow with the hilt of his sword, or even that he's so lucky that look, this lock is already open.

Levels: Raising levels increases your level for your action and your interaction classes, so they'll always match. I suppose there could be race levels, but don't see as how that's needed.

Feats: I'm not sure how to implement this. I definitely see feats broken into the categories of action and interaction and it's up to you as to which side of your character you want to take it for. That choice can really distinguish how much a group wants to play low-combat and how much high-combat. I can see combat feats as numerical enhancements and ability enhancements such as greater area of effect or the ability to push an opponent with a successful attack. The interactive feats could be numerical bonuses to skills or small abilities that are interesting but not quite as good as an ability derived from the class. Perhaps it could give you about half the capability of an interactive class's ability with the further option to take the feat a second time to make it identical.

Skills: List of skills with class skills and cross-class skills, buying and difference between class and cross-class as per Pathfinder more or less. The list, however, is completely changed and has the "fuzzy" approach applied. Currently skills in D&D are methods, these will be results. If the player succeeds at a skill he gets the result by whatever method suits his character. Unseen skill could be a magical character turning invisible or a roguish character hiding in the shadows. Each is functionally identical and has the same chance of succeeding. Getting There would cover any attempt to move from one place to another in a way that involves skill, covering certain areas that were Jump, Athletics, Acrobatics, Tumble, Climb, Swimming etc. depending on game or edition. What is an acrobatic series of flips for one character may be a short range teleport for another. Again, functionally the same but leaving the fluff up to the player. I don't have a comprehensive list, but you get the idea. This, combined with super-skills, can really split up the skill-load amongst the party differently than current editions. Perhaps the magicky-guy takes care of locks, the sword-swinger takes care of traps and the sneaky guy takes care of identifying magic items. These skills interact tightly with the interactive class, so if the sword-swinger wants to take care of the traps he'll either need to take an interactive class with that as a super-skill or class skill, or take it as a cross-class, or expend some feats.

Theme: This is essentially your third class. This is what you call yourself to tie you other choices together in a logical package. The descriptions for this are quick, the choices are few and the bonuses are mainly situational. This is where we might see Bard, as a theme that pulls together the player's previous choices. This, like the other sockets, is completely open, though. An elf with martial attack and the scholar interactive can be a Bard as much as the dwarf with magical attacks and noble interactive. The situational bonuses the class gets are only to cement the theme as the definition of who you are. I can see allowing this to interact with previous choices, but lightly as they are situational. A +2 bonus to a couple different skills used in certain settings could be appropriate. Or possibly a +2 bonus to ANY skill as long as you're in your element. This class levels up every level as well, but there isn't too much gained every level. Probably just the situational bonus at 1st level. Maybe some minor abilities later on.

Jan 22, 2012 -- 5:36AM, TheMormegil wrote:

Now if only there were some better names for Active Class and Interactive Class...

Top and Bottom.

Jan 22, 2012 -- 6:12AM, Steely_Dan wrote:

Jan 22, 2012 -- 5:36AM, TheMormegil wrote:

Now if only there were some better names for Active Class and Interactive Class...

Top and Bottom.

I'm so getting 5E now.

I like many of OP concepts, for me the perfect edition will be: Basic rules very similar to Star Wars SAGA.  Talent trees, easy multiclassing, AC Reflex, Fortitude and Will Defenses; half level to damage, Feats, divided in combat and non-combat: characters start at 1st level with one in both category and must alternate between the two category when levelling up. Add to this a good magic system ( i prefer non-vancian, but not really against), magic items that were flavourful and not bland +x to hit or defense. Last thing (but very important) monster design simple and fast, 4th ed. did this very well IMO.
Gimme this and i'm sold...

Jan 22, 2012 -- 1:08PM, Numbed wrote:

Note to point out that in the 2-classes scenario, you never have the fighter twiddling their thumbs or hampering the party in out-of-combat scenarios because their skills and feats suck. EVERY character will have a way to interact, and it will be the way of their choosing.

Which is quite likely THE selling point for separating combat and non-combat capacities. If you manage to, everybody has a chance to play in every situation, both in and out of combat. That's important if you want to keep the players entertained.