I wasn't sure how to do a title that wasn't too long, but essentially, what are your feelings on having a "core" or "battle" dice type assigned to a class or theme.  What I mean by this, is that each archetype has it's own core dice for several aspects of the combat mechanics.  We're all familar with this in the context of hit points--a fighter has a d10 while a thief has a d6 for example.  But what if you expand it to include most things combat related?

Here's what I've been thinking of.  The core dice is used to gain hp, inflict damage, and gain healing.

For example: Player 1 is playing a juggernaut class/theme.  The core dice for that class is a d12.  The character rolls a d12 for new hp, uses a d12 when rolling for damage, and anyone healing him rolls a d12 for healing.

Compare that to the infiltrator class, who has a core dice of a d8.  Yes, this means that when Bob the Healer casts the same healing spell, he's healing 1d12 for player 1, and 1d8 for player 2.

Since base damage is based on class and not weapon, each weapon would instead have a modifier.  I.e., a dagger might be +0, a long sword +2, and a two handed axe +3 to damage.

Thoughts?  The reasoning behind this is that someone is better trained in fighting would not only be able to take more damage than another class, but they also typically inflict more damage even though using the same weapon (based on training), and be able to be healed effectively the same % of damage as another class.  This addresses what I consider a problem of the same Cure Serious Wounds spell heal a MU back from the brink of death while the same spell barely makes a dent to the wounded fighter.

Sure I mean, in theory, in terms of the game world, you could explain it and work that into say, OD&D rules including the varying hit dice of Supplement 1, to then replace default d6 damage for everything, for instance, but at the same time, maybe there's the potential to make the classes feel too... all-or-nothing, in a way, maybe, using always the same die for everything except to-hit and saves?

In theory I wouldn't be opposed to that kind of thing. Hell, using your own hit dice for healing spell results/rolls that you receive makes complete sense to me.

Would damage from spellcasters work the same? That is, they take their own hit die type as the die type of the damage. A MU's fireball would then do d4 damage, all MU spells would do d4 damage basically.

Quote from: Benoist;542346Would damage from spellcasters work the same? That is, they take their own hit die type as the die type of the damage. A MU's fireball would then do d4 damage, all MU spells would do d4 damage basically.

No, spell damage would be based on individual spells + attribute modifiers + any skill/feat modifiers.  But I haven't given a whole lot of thought that far ahead.  Right now I'm just flirting with the idea of a more unified dice type by theme.  I think it might be easier for new players to grasp if they're using the same die type for most actions instead of searching and making sure they have the right type (which we've all seen).

About the only thing I'm married to is wanting to have healing spells be affect by the type of character they are healing, for reasons mentioned.

So, as d12 has a bigger range than d8, does that mean that in combat a Juggernaut bloke is more inconsistent than Infiltrator guy ?

Quote from: Benoist;542343Sure I mean, in theory, in terms of the game world, you could explain it and work that into say, OD&D rules including the varying hit dice of Supplement 1, to then replace default d6 damage for everything, for instance, but at the same time, maybe there's the potential to make the classes feel too... all-or-nothing, in a way, maybe, using always the same die for everything except to-hit and saves?
.

Obviously there would need to be a reason why players wouldn't always choose the juggernaut.  The infiltrator would have additional skills (like a thief) and make up for lack of damage by having an easier chance at status effects (tripping, blinding, disarming, etc).

Just a thought.  But yes, there would be balance there so no one class is all or nothing.  And that doesn't mean that the juggernaut would be the fighter of AD&D--no special maneuvers and just beat stuff.  I'm thinking of special learned skills like immovability, charges, etc.

Quote from: Sean !;542351So, as d12 has a bigger range than d8, does that mean that in combat a Juggernaut bloke is more inconsistent than Infiltrator guy ?

No.  Without any other modifiers, the juggernaut has a range of damage 1-12, while the infiltrator has a range of only 1-8.  So on average, that's 6.5 dmg for the juggernaut, and 4.5 dmg for the infiltrator.

In general, higher numbers will also be better.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;542352Obviously there would need to be a reason why players wouldn't always choose the juggernaut.  The infiltrator would have additional skills (like a thief) and make up for lack of damage by having an easier chance at status effects (tripping, blinding, disarming, etc).

.

Or, and this just hit me, if you expand the core dice type to skill checks, you could have something like:

When doing a non combat skill check, classes use the following and total results:

Juggernaut: 1d12
Infiltrator: 3d8
Mage: 3d6 (4d6 for knowledge checks)
Soldier: 2d10
ect

That way you keep the same die type that each class "owns", but certain classes would be better than others.

I have played D&D where your Hit Die (fighter D10, Cleric D8, thief D6, Wiz D4) was your HP die, your damage with weapons and your daily healing die. It worked fine.

I run OD&D with D6s for most everything.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;542356Or, and this just hit me, if you expand the core dice type to skill checks, you could have something like:

When doing a non combat skill check, classes use the following and total results:

Juggernaut: 1d12
Infiltrator: 3d8
Mage: 3d6 (4d6 for knowledge checks)
Soldier: 2d10
ect

That way you keep the same die type that each class "owns", but certain classes would be better than others.

Couldn't you just keep the one die per class but roll LOW to succeed at non-combat tasks* - so a MAGE has to roll low on 1d4 on a knowledge check whereas a Juggernaut has to roll low on 1d12 ?

(*Suppose it would make the 1d8 infiltrator a bit worse than a mage at hiding though )

Quote from: Sean !;542376Couldn't you just keep the one die per class but roll LOW to succeed at non-combat tasks - so a MAGE has to roll low on 1d4 whereas a Juggernaut has to roll low on 1d12 ?

Interesting idea that's definitely worth more thought.

Smells kind of like a Cortex hack, actually.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;542379Interesting idea that's definitely worth more thought.

Maybe if it's a non-combat task that is your class schtick (like infiltrator sneaking around), then you roll 2 of your class die and pick the lowest ?

- you could reverse it for your combat schtick, juggernaut picks highest of two d12s for charging, infiltrator picks highest of two d8s for backstabbing ?

Quote from: Sean !;542385- you could reverse it for your combat schtick, juggernaut picks highest of two d12s for charging, infiltrator picks highest of two d8s for backstabbing ?

You are now describing exactly how the Cortex Plus core system works.  All you need is an old-school fantasy ha...oh, wait.

Generally I think the design process is a bit backward since its starting with an idea and then trying to build a system around it, instead of starting with the objectives and designing a system to meet them. Just sayin': I do a lot of that too...
 
"Your hit dice is also your damage dice" sort of approximates the way allowed class weapon proficiencies limit damage in D&D anyway. I think that's already a thing in D&D, except that it works indirectly rather than directly, and through various edition changes the damages have sometimes drifted a bit.