Been working on my own ttrpg system for a while. I've got a friend interested in playing a test-run of it, so I'm focusing on hammering out the system before we start. The pressure of thinking outloud in a setting where people MAY comment helps me focus, so please criticize or comment.
>What's the system?
A d20 system for an original but fairly typical high fantasy setting. My background revolves mostly around 5e, because that's all people play. Even though I've got plenty of issues with the system, it's really convenient to translate my system to 5e terms for the sake of familiarity.
>What's the original focus of this thread?
The campaign revolves around an order of knights/paladins sent to investigate a cult. So I'll be focusing on explaining a handful of my classes in hopes of getting some second opinions on design.
 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
So OP, will you add anything to your thread? I mean, if you want to get any feedback, or anything, maybe provide us with some pdf containing the system, or at least description of mechanics/unique lore, that you advertised in OP. If you want to shill your little experiment, we really need something. Or you are another language model experiment?
OP is inventing this shit as he goes and has not written ANYTHING down that's why he's outsourcing the creativity to /tg/.
>outsourcing the creativity to /tg/
That's like outsorcing quality assurance to chinese steel mill
>Planned~70 classes, designed around a double-class system
>4830 combinations
My brother in Christ, are you really sure about this?
The claim is a lot less crazy than it sounds I THINK. I've always been interested in the fact that different people could have different ideas for a specific concept. Like multiple ways of how to "critfish" or how a "witch hunter" should work/feel. The number could go down, but its more about the journey of trying to make each class feel unique. its possible that the number goes down, but I at least have strong ideas for a central gimmick/mechanic for around 35 of the 40 martial-based classes.
The way multiclassing works is that each time you level up, you can either level up as your original class, or pick a secondary class to level up as. Each character is limited to only 2 classes. Each class has a 'super skill' or key skill or capstone or whatever that is relatively strong and makes a large change/improvement to the class's gimmick. Classes will all have these super skills unlock at levels 5 and 9. This means that single-class characters might be competitively good with duo-classes because its 2 super-skills vs 1.
As I design the classes, I'm trying to stay away from potential issues that could be huge problems when combined with another class. The goal is just for smooth synergy. Like maybe a Fighter would feel better with the knight stances. Or maybe the gladiator whose gimmick revolves around secondary status effects might want some of the knight's stamina-draining attacks. IF 2 classes completely break the system, I can always just go back and change it.
>its more about the journey of trying to make each class feel unique
I think you are trying to supplement players creativity, which is dangerous approach to problem. What I see is that you took look at DnD and thought, that system is shallow and not giving ability to do something unique outside of few basic parameters and cosmetics. So you took something that should be generic toolkit and started to build your own vision. Maybe condense classes to more generic one and instead enable players through flavoring (specific skills/abilities/traits).
>Each class has a 'super skill' or key skill
>super skills unlock at levels 5 and 9
Wouldn't it be better to go with classless system and let players select one core skill and then to build their character from roster of available generic (limited by their level/attributes). With option to either adapt another core skill on appropriate level, or enhance existing core skill?
>The goal is just for smooth synergy
>IF 2 classes completely break the system, I can always just go back and change it
You will go back, edit it and introduce another game breaking combination, this will lead you to development hell.
You may have a lot of good points, but I personally always believed that some amount of limitation leads to creativity which is better than environments that just allow for full creative freedom. I'm also personally more experienced in thinking of things in relation to classes, rather than thinking of a list of 1000 different skills. I think that even when you have full classless systems, people just emulate specific classes regardless. A little bit of context and boundaries might be for the best when the amount of (predicted) classes are so much.
I'm thinking of my classes through almost exclusively mechanics in and out of combat. The Knights revolve around their stances, stamina drain, and stamina finishers. A player is free to flavor that however they like though. With specific classes, I can also design specific gimmicks and the skills that support them, whether the skills are unique or generic.
tldr, the classless system would be a valid alternative, but I just have my preference and think this is funner for me.
>You will go back, edit it and introduce another game breaking combination, this will lead you to development hell.
Besides trying to stay aware of systems that could potentially break things, I'm only designing each class individually, without taking into consideration how they multiclass with others. IF this system catches on, I'm hoping players will let me know about system breaking combos they discover, and hopefully those can be edited out real easy. If not, or if I can't rely on live player feedback, I've got no issue admitting
>Woopsy, I made a frick up and A/B multiclass is broken and shouldn't be allowed.
I'll also add a line to specify that DMs should allow players to have fun with any great combos they discover, but shouldn't be afraid to ban them afterwards, or if they already know about funky combos.
Quirks about my system for interest
>Highest player level is 9
>Planned~70 classes, designed around a double-class system
>Aiming for more complexity compared to 5e without too much crunch.
First class to share my thoughts about will be Knights.
>Vibes/general impression
Heavily armored, well-trained 'elite' soldiers. At least they should be elite, but in the grand scheme of things they usually end up on the same level as just relatively sturdy jobbers.
>Mechanical goals/balance ideas
There's very few classes that get access to heavy armor, so knight will definitely have to be more focused on being a tank than a damage dealer. And unlike most of the other heavy-armor classes, Knights don't have any magic for more potential damage. So in generic terms, Knights will have 2 distinct traits to the skills they learn: simple maneuvers with low scaling and Stances. As an example for one of knight's skills,
>Zornhau - deals 3d8 damage, with F-scaling. Also deals 1d4 damage to target's stamina.
In comparison to
>Full slash - deals 2d8 damage, with B-scaling.
Mechanically, the knight's zornhau will start out stronger than the generic 'bigger damage attack', but will quickly get outscaled with more levels. This will encourage knight players to not prioritize picking more strength over more Constitution. The stamina damage is also fairly unique to knights, giving them a form of innate crowd control in their basic skills. This will lead into some of their later skills that are meant to be a finisher with big damage that ignores defenses, but can only be performed against targets with no stamina. Stances are the other trait that knights specialize in, to give them a quality that makes them stand out against Paladins, dark knights, and rune knights. While the others all have magic to help them, knights only have superior martial skills to rely on.
Stances are passive buffs that you have to 'activate'. Knight stances specifically are designed to revolve around specific melee weapon setups: 1-handed weapon/shield, 2-handed weapon, one-handed weapon/free hand. An example of a knight stance might be
>Window Guard Stance - grants bonus to DA(damage avoidability) while using a 2-handed weapon. Allows you to use a reaction to counter attack with a stab whenever an enemy's attack misses.
Knights will get multiple stances, some of which might be good for attacking on their turn, and some of which might be better to stay in during enemy turns. To make them slide gracefully into different stances, they'll also have a couple moves like
>Wheeling slash - Deals 1d8 damage with F-scaling. Costs reduced stamina to use the first time you use it and also allows you to freely switch to a new stance.
Other classes may have a few stances, but moves like the wheeling slash will be knight exclusive to make the player feel like they're juggling through the most effective stances for any given situation. Names of everything are definitely subject to change, and specific numbers aren't necessarily accurate, just used to make a point clear.
Sorry, I didn't expect anyone to bother posting anything before I got a chance to. I'm just writing down my thoughts throughout my workday when I have a couple minutes to spare. Like a diary of thoughts that I'm welcoming comments on.
It's not that I haven't written anything down. I just realize that I've changed too many mechanics gradually, so I need to update the google doc. Too many inconsistencies will just make things MORE confusing than anything so I won't be reposting this until I get a chance to do it over again. But just for proof of concept,
>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NmyHC-wO_ttOtMA1pDrb089eWVmzN95ddFrBTTkFIdw/edit?usp=sharing
Scaling with what? If you give me huge str scaling that wont make me level con instead, it will make me level str and just kill whatever i dont like
My system revolves around value scaling for most things.
>S-scaling - +1 point(or damage) per every 3 points of stat(in this case, strength).
>A-scaling - 1 point per every 4
>B-scaling - 1 point per 5
>C-scaling - 1 point per 6
>D-scaling - 1 point per 8
>F-scaling - 1 point per 10
There's 5 different stats. For your stats you roll 2d6, and then you have 2d4s to add to 2 separate stats to maximize strengths or shore up weaknesses.
When you level up, you gain 2-3specific stats depending on your race, 2specific stats depending on your class, and 2 stats that you get to put anywhere.
Assuming you pick the right combination to put ALL 6 of your statpoints into the same stat every time, you'd max out around 50. So the difference between S-scaling and D-scaling is +16 vs +5ish.
Knights only have D or F scaling to their skills, compared to Fighters or other damage-centered classes whose scalings are more towards A.
>Planned~70 classes, designed around a double-class system
No thank you.
>Planned~70 classes, designed around a double-class system
You really should rethink this. Pick a few core classes and start with those first as a baseline - 70 classes won't matter if you can't make the core gameplay work with ~4-6 classes.
I got you senpai. This upcoming mini campaign with my friend is limited to knights, paladins, fighters, adventurers and priests. A handful of flavorfully appropriate classes for the campaign just to see how the system feels. Once I can confirm that the system is fundamentally sound, I can start thinking of all the other classes with more confidence.
Until then, I’m hoping to hear opinions on what other people think knights should be/play like in terms of flavor and mechanics
Paladins.
>vibes and personal impressions
I always thought of paladins as strictly knights but with holy powers added on so I pretty much designed them as much.
>Mechanical goals/balance ideas
Through dnd, final fantasy and a couple other jrpgs, they seem a little too versatile so I tried narrowing their scope a little. I also made them loosely tied to one-handed weapon and shield but not strictly limited to that. Paladins share exclusively the weapon+shield stances of knight, but without the stance switching attack skills, to make them feel just a little bit less fluid in comparison. I decided to not include healing in their kit, so their signature combat skills are: defensive/shield based maneuvers, offensive melee magic(smite, buffs) and offensive-oriented aura buffs.
Their physical skills all revolve around a shield, but multiclassing to use a different weapon is still an option since their magic works regardless.
>Magic balance
I figured that in exchange for paladins being tanky with magic, I’d balance it out by giving them low mana with high costs so every spell feels important. I’m also mulling around the idea of low-charisma paladins vs high charisma paladins. It would be nice if both were viable. So between auras and spell buffs, one of them should have good faith scaling and the other shouldn’t, so it’s just as effective to use for low faith. I’m thinking of making the auras low scaling though, to mitigate the issue of a max-faith paladin buffing as many people that can fit inside the aura. Makes it easier to plan around at least.
Adventurer
>vibes and general impressions
Will definitely be the gimmick class in a gimmicky system. I was told that I might as well be using a classless system, and adventurers will be the class with the most freedom as I treat them like they’re the root class to everything else.
>Mechanical goals/balance ideas
Statistically middle of the road when it comes to Health and stamina. They have almost no limitations to equipment and are one of the few classes that can wear heavy armor. The big design philosophy for them is versatility over power. Which most likely means they’ll suck, but will offer a very nice niche for anyone who wants it
>every existing generic skill
I see adventurers as being able to learn every generic skill from any type of martial class. In return, every generic skill is only available to them at level 1, when other classes that get them would be able to upgrade them to levels 2 or 3. Im hoping this makes adventurers obviously weaker, but not completely worthless when it comes to raw damage.
>signature skill stealing
At level 1, every class gets 2 or 3 skills that define the class and make it operate and function as that class. To a certain extent, I don’t like when you have to gain a certain amount of levels before your class actually starts to FEEL like your class or for it to “come online”. For the adventurer’s key skills at levels 5 and 9, I’m thinking they can choose a class to gain the signature skills that are otherwise unique, that they get at level 1.
Maybe they also get the unique stat improvement of +1 to all 5 stats, rather than +1 to 2 stats. That could also help them function as the universally versatile class and give them a little boost for not being able to upgrade their skills
Most of the thought so far has gone towards the martial half of the classes. But a list of classes I am currently aiming to include, and design to each feel unique and different from each other are
>Adventurer(fully realized)
>Fighter
>Rogue
>Scout
>Gladiator
>Tactician
>Warlord
>Berserker
>Juggernaut
>Barbarian
>Knight
>Paladin
>Dark knight
>Rune knight
>Thief
>Soul thief
>Assassin
>Mastermind
>Witch Hunter
>Archer
>Arbelast
>Gunner
>Beast Master
>Sentinel
>Ranger
>Tinkerer
>Duelist
>Giant Slayer
>Champion
>Iaijutsu Master
>Weapon Master
>Champion
And I'm sorry, I'm not currently home to get the list so I'm forgetting a few of them.
OP I'm gonna be real with you. This system looks like a hot mess. Have you tried actually playing a solo game with it? Or, have you just started throwing together a bunch of vaguely video-gamey crunch that seemed cool? Get your core gameplay loop figured out before you bother with all this level up tripe.
I've run a few test characters by myself, with myself. The core gameplay loop, as far as combat goes, feels fine. It will probably be a little annoying updating all your skills and weapons each time you level up, but luckily that can be done before/after/between sessions, and only happens 8 times. Haven't had a chance to focus on high level balance.
But also, that's why I'm appreciative of my chance to actually playtest with my friend soon. Worst case scenario, we discover its shit 30 minutes in and just hang out instead. Best case scenario, maybe I make a habit of making these threads as I continue to design it.
>can't draw
>can't even search for drawings to steal
>has such shit taste that he can't even tell when the output of a script that someone else made to automate stealing drawings for him ends up looking like shit
>first thing he decides is it's a d20 system
What a fricking nothingburger.
Sorry my guy. I’ll take breaks but I don’t think I’m gonna stop any of my projects forever. At least I’ll be easy for you to ignore if I keep all my stuff here instead of spreading out though. Crazy to think I’m notable for someone to take enough interest to recognize me though.
Although I’m not completely sure you got the right guy. I just also draw stuff and know I’m not good at it. Never been accused of stealing anything though.
You're trying this hard to pretend that jangle-pixel mess of an OP image ain't algorithmically generated slop?
Oh. I just saved a picture to use as the topic. I wasn’t claiming to have drawn or generated that. Or any of the others I posted. They’re all just vaguely related to what I’m talking about. I thought you were shitting on some of my drawings I’ve posted to co.
I would suggest at least reading games other than 5e D&D before continuing with this atrocity you’re committing.
This sounds fricking awful, OP. Maximalism is the refuge of people who enjoy thinking up systems more than they do creating finished projects.
Call it a hobby then. My plan is to keep scope narrow until everything is tidied up and then continue adding in the classes and content
Woops. Meant to post the picture. It helps break things up