Quote from: beejazz;559754If 10 mana does 10 damage and 20 does 20, it is always better to spend 20 mana and one action on 20 damage than it is to spend 20 mana and two actions to do 20 damage. Whether it's damage dealing or healing. Similar logic applies to number of targets and such.

I think you mean "...spend 10 mana and two actions to do 20 damage."  Which is entirely logical, even if the damage is guaranteed and not a task resolution check; the second action could still be interrupted or denied.

Quote from: StormBringer;559790I think you mean "...spend 10 mana and two actions to do 20 damage."  Which is entirely logical, even if the damage is guaranteed and not a task resolution check; the second action could still be interrupted or denied.

I was talking totals. I'm not assuming interruption because I haven't seen it mentioned.

Quote from: beejazz;559799I was talking totals. I'm not assuming interruption because I haven't seen it mentioned.

Ok, my bad.

Quote from: MGuy;559686That's actually where I went to bring it in. at first I had something that was much closer to healing surges but I took that as inspiration and changed it up a bit.


 The thing is, I expect people to use their AoOs on actual attacks and a significant portion of abilities require the use of an AoO. I might do the trade down thing in order to give people more AoOs but I'm not committed to that idea as it requires just a bit more bookkeeping on the player's part. The "maybe a bonus/maybe not paradigm is important in that I want people to be engaged. I haven't gotten to how defense works in more depth so I haven't explained that things like fighting defensively and full defense are still in the game and allow your active defense roll to be higher, thus practically guaranteeing a bonus. There are also swathes of defense focused abilities (parrying, reflecting, catching, etc) that will make Active Defense a reasonable option.

 It allows me to play around with damage totals in a not so direct way. It means high dexterity fighters don't have to trade off as much damage for choosing not to be high strength and allows for more balanced builds.

Grabbing is a different monster than attacking. Its an all or nothing trade off because once you get into a grapple the grapple victim's turn is lost. They either have to struggle to get out of it (takes up their turn) or attempt to do something while continuing to suffer from the grappling. Being grappled makes you unable to use larger than bite sized weapons, makes casting a pain in the ass and unlikely to happen, and runs the danger of only getting worse from there. Because of the dangers presented by grappling I want to make grappling a fair but not overpowering option. So I upped the chances that it just doesn't work. Usually people who want to have grappling be a "thing" will get a feat that allows them to, after being able to hit the target, have a definite advantage in succeeding in the opposed fortitude roll and sticking the grapple.

Edit: Grapple and pin are distinguished in that to pin an opponent you have to grab them first. Pinning makes things extra bad for the grapple victim. Once pinned all they can do is use up a turn unpinning themselves and even then they'd be prone afterward.

I like precision damage. Again my heartbreaker has dex figther options and the effect my precision damage has is to bypass armour and reduce the ammount of damage the target can roll (in my game HPs sit about wounds asa damage soak)

For me figthers don't master weapons they master syles but fencing and knife fighting are dex based precision styles.

Quote from: MGuy;558574Kind of. I'm thinking first of role/theme protection when doing classes. I want classes to be a general enough that one class can fit a bunch of archetypes but "protected" enough such that they "feel" different then when you play other classes. I'm not sure how I would be able to design a class based system for a generic fantasy game by starting in any other fashion.

I took the design space. Devided into 3 components. Combat, Magic and Skills

Then I designed 3 classes. the Warrior, the Caster and the Rogue each of whom dominates one of those design spaces.

But that is the extend of my top down from then one I am all bottom up. All PCs have an archetype, Pirate, barbarian, Cavalier, Spy, Sorcerer, Batle Mage etc etc Each archetype sits under a class. There are an infinite number of archetypes the base game come with 10 and a kit to build more. Archetypes are applications of a limited set of rules with a cost model, Only the GM creates archetypes and they should be setitng spefic, The Setting book, which is really just a set of iterations of the various toolkits has settign specific archetypes arranged by culture and gerography.

This gives me the flexibility I want and the feel of lots of player options without massive exponentional growth in rules. I dislike the D&D paradigm of more rules more rules more classes more rules.

So the Gladiator warrior archetype has d12 HP, gains an addtional rank in a weapon style of their choice and an additional rank in a skill called Assess Opponent, They can pick skills from the Warrior list only. They can use any armour and can take all armour skills to Grand Mastery apart from Archery. Likewise for any weapon.
Costs per level are (you get 10 points per level)
Defence : 2 Max 1 per level
Attack : 2 Max 1 per level
Skills : 4
Magic Source : 40
Manna dice : 5
Doom: 10 (a doom is a prophesy rolled randomly can be good or bad and sets up a quest of sorts)

Now all that stuff is common there are no special Gladiator effects at 5th or 9th level  but the way the gladiator shakes out will make him very different to a Knight or a Barbarian and toally different to a Saint or a Wizard.

The Archetype system still needs tweaking.

Quote from: Marleycat;559769Tell me more.  Understand currently it looks VERY 4e to me. Please explain.

MArley, at this point I'm not sure what 4e IS to you. Have you played it for any solid length of time. For example I played it for about 3 months every weekend. I ran 2 different characters (one on saturday one on sunday). I came to the conclusion that I hated 4E in that tie. Then later found out, as more splats came out and people talked about it more, that there were even more reasons or me to not like it than even I had experienced. Now I find people treating 4E like hitler and anything that reminds someone vaguely of 4E must be like 4e. I can see how some of my system might sound like 4E since a number of the things I've included appeared in 4E (though all of them appeared well before 4E was introduced in one system or supplement somewhere). Even so I don't see how my spells remind you of 4e at all.

Quote from: beejazz;559709I use assymetrical grabbing like Star Wars Saga personally. I think the light weapons rule makes more sense for the grabber than the grabbee in this case, though the grabbee can turn around and grab back.

As for preventing movement on a simple grab (which is pretty rough in terms of the action economy), you could just make movement an opposed strength roll when grabbing is happening. The worst offense of grappling (immobility) is 50/50 after the initial 50/50 instead of bumping the whole thing to 25/50. Likewise for the pinning, you could just make pinning harder rather than all of grappling (in my game, the pinner has to use a standard action to pin every round, and has to break the pin if he wants to defend against an attack).

I also leave prone-ness out of it mostly, unless you get thrown (the other cool move you can do to a grabbed guy, besides pinning).

You actually make an interesting point. i believe I will institute the immobility at the very least if the initial grab action hits its mark. After that the second roll will just be for taking control of the grab. If your grab succeeds you don't need to make any more rolls. You just declare what you want to do with your grab and do it on your turn. Meanwhile the victim has to struggle to get out of it so only the victim is making rolls once you have control of the grab.

Quote from: beejazz;559754Actually, I do have a little advice on the mana system: Make sure it's still balanced on the action economy somehow.

If 10 mana does 10 damage and 20 does 20, it is always better to spend 20 mana and one action on 20 damage than it is to spend 20 mana and two actions to do 20 damage. Whether it's damage dealing or healing. Similar logic applies to number of targets and such.

So either make sure there's diminishing returns on sinking further points into a spell, place a cap on the number of points that can be sunk into it, or both.

It's probably obvious, but I figured it was worth mentioning.

This is something I've pondered but I don't have any particular problem with people wanting to go Nova. The Mana set up is used more to allow for abilities to scale easy more than anything else. I actually intend on characters with 10 mana to be blowing 10 mana on each ability at the level they are allowed to blow that much on it. In fact that's why I have HP scale just to accommodate this. This also inspires players to do what it takes to keep their mana up which helps on the management side. They also have to deal with continuous effects (like if they shape shift, mind control someone, buff someone, etc) if they way to keep up those from round to round, and that eats up mana.

I'll have more later. I'm feeling under the weather today and I don't think I can bring myself to answer more right now.

Quote from: MGuy;560156MArley, at this point I'm not sure what 4e IS to you. Have you played it for any solid length of time. For example I played it for about 3 months every weekend. I ran 2 different characters (one on saturday one on sunday). I came to the conclusion that I hated 4E in that tie. Then later found out, as more splats came out and people talked about it more, that there were even more reasons or me to not like it than even I had experienced. Now I find people treating 4E like hitler and anything that reminds someone vaguely of 4E must be like 4e. I can see how some of my system might sound like 4E since a number of the things I've included appeared in 4E (though all of them appeared well before 4E was introduced in one system or supplement somewhere). Even so I don't see how my spells remind you of 4e at all.

It's the whole everyone is a spellcaster, magic is highly restricted and regulated
Everyone with the same power scheme deal.  Classic 4e.

Quote from: Marleycat;560169It's the whole everyone is a spellcaster, magic is highly restricted and regulated
Everyone with the same power scheme deal.  Classic 4e.

You haven't played 4E then. Martial classes explicitly don't use "magic". In core at least one of the fighter's best abilities is swinging a sword at something at a good angle. One of the best abilities (or so I heard) in the game at the point was "Blade Cascade" which just allowed you to keep attacking a target until they died or you missed or something. What's more is that you were only able to get abilities off your list. Cross class ability cherry picking wasn't in the core game.
The only thing you've pointed out with a line to 4e is everyone basically having the same power scheme (because everyone uses Mana) and that idea is not exclusive to 4E at all.

Quote from: jibbajibba;559830I like precision damage. Again my heartbreaker has dex figther options and the effect my precision damage has is to bypass armour and reduce the ammount of damage the target can roll (in my game HPs sit about wounds asa damage soak)

For me figthers don't master weapons they master syles but fencing and knife fighting are dex based precision styles.

I like the idea of precision damage too. It allows characters that are more accurate or less strength inclined to be able to do noticeable damage. There are no "fighters' in my game and fighting styles are more opened up to everybody (as spells are).

Quote from: jibbajibba;559836I took the design space. Devided into 3 components. Combat, Magic and Skills

Then I designed 3 classes. the Warrior, the Caster and the Rogue each of whom dominates one of those design spaces.

But that is the extend of my top down from then one I am all bottom up. All PCs have an archetype, Pirate, barbarian, Cavalier, Spy, Sorcerer, Batle Mage etc etc Each archetype sits under a class. There are an infinite number of archetypes the base game come with 10 and a kit to build more. Archetypes are applications of a limited set of rules with a cost model, Only the GM creates archetypes and they should be setitng spefic, The Setting book, which is really just a set of iterations of the various toolkits has settign specific archetypes arranged by culture and gerography.

This gives me the flexibility I want and the feel of lots of player options without massive exponentional growth in rules. I dislike the D&D paradigm of more rules more rules more classes more rules.

So the Gladiator warrior archetype has d12 HP, gains an addtional rank in a weapon style of their choice and an additional rank in a skill called Assess Opponent, They can pick skills from the Warrior list only. They can use any armour and can take all armour skills to Grand Mastery apart from Archery. Likewise for any weapon.
Costs per level are (you get 10 points per level)
Defence : 2 Max 1 per level
Attack : 2 Max 1 per level
Skills : 4
Magic Source : 40
Manna dice : 5
Doom: 10 (a doom is a prophesy rolled randomly can be good or bad and sets up a quest of sorts)

Now all that stuff is common there are no special Gladiator effects at 5th or 9th level  but the way the gladiator shakes out will make him very different to a Knight or a Barbarian and toally different to a Saint or a Wizard.

The Archetype system still needs tweaking.

My game isn't divided among those lines so I definitely see how our end results ended up being different. I'm going for a generic system as well though. "Combat" is something I expect everyone to do so everyone has access to abilities that allow them to do it. The class's, outside of their unique abilities, are designed with the intention of promoting certain "fighting styles" as mentioned before. Magic is a lot more accessible and skills are available to everyone to about the same degree. While there are class skills (10 points in ten different skills that you get when starting the class) because of my non skill point system they only give you a rank up in the listed skills which means that your profession (5 skills), Race (3 skills), and specialization (2 skills) have about as  much influence on your starting point as they do. From there you can develop any skill you want.

Outside of that I have12 classes (Still debating on what the 12th is going to be but the others are well into development) that are as non restrictive as they can be without totally abandoning any hint of flavor.

For example the Champion (since I've been talking about him so much) can be your regular sword and board defender for the team. He can be a duelist that specializes in defensive maneuvers. He can be a horse riding hospitaler, a member of cavalry who is practically invincible and highly mobile on his ride, etc.

The classes are so generic that I almost considered just making a "generic classless system" to begin with but I wanted something class based for whatever reason.

Quote from: MGuy;560225You haven't played 4E then. Martial classes explicitly don't use "magic". In core at least one of the fighter's best abilities is swinging a sword at something at a good angle. One of the best abilities (or so I heard) in the game at the point was "Blade Cascade" which just allowed you to keep attacking a target until they died or you missed or something. What's more is that you were only able to get abilities off your list. Cross class ability cherry picking wasn't in the core game.
The only thing you've pointed out with a line to 4e is everyone basically having the same power scheme (because everyone uses Mana) and that idea is not exclusive to 4E at all.

Do even have any ideas what comes out your ass? Seriously?  I played That game you fuckwit. Everyone does use magic that's what the inanity of power sources are. Mana has jackall about that or identical power slots, sheesh! I ask for an explanation and I get insults what is it about so many of you 4e'ers?

Quote from: Marleycat;560325Do even have any ideas what comes out your ass? Seriously?  I played That game you fuckwit. Everyone does use magic that's what the inanity of power sources are. Mana has jackall about that or identical power slots, sheesh! I ask for an explanation and I get insults what is it about so many of you 4e'ers?

Its not an insult its an observation. If you read the abilities in core then you'd know classes with the "Martial" source don't get "mystical" powers. They get :Martial" powers which, if you indeed did read and pay attention are specifically not mystical in scope or description. The power sources are split up explicitly so classes with a different power source don't get the same fluff as others. So for you to say everyone gets magic powers (at least in core) I have to assume you didn't actually read the abilities.

And yes, Mana doesn't have jack all to do with power slots or them being identical but what does that have to do with the response I gave you? The fact that you took what I said as an insult just means you either read what I wrote in the worst way possible or indeed don't know as much about 4e as you thought and I called you out on it. I don't like 4E myself but I like to keep my reasons for not liking it legit.

Quote from: MGuy;560333Its not an insult its an observation. If you read the abilities in core then you'd know classes with the "Martial" source don't get "mystical" powers. They get :Martial" powers which, if you indeed did read and pay attention are specifically not mystical in scope or description. The power sources are split up explicitly so classes with a different power source don't get the same fluff as others. So for you to say everyone gets magic powers (at least in core) I have to assume you didn't actually read the abilities.

And yes, Mana doesn't have jack all to do with power slots or them being identical but what does that have to do with the response I gave you? The fact that you took what I said as an insult just means you either read what I wrote in the worst way possible or indeed don't know as much about 4e as you thought and I called you out on it. I don't like 4E myself but I like to keep my reasons for not liking it legit.

Redoing it all you want it's magic weeboo. Presentation, it's all in the presentation.  Either way that isn't the subject I just wanted an explanation.  I got it but don't like it.Move along.