Design step 1, Scope.   Posted by The Spark.Group: 0
The Spark
 GM, 13 posts
Mon 16 May 2016
at 10:04
Design step 1, Scope
I figure we should start with determining what major factors we will change and what we shall leave the same.

The goals I truly want at the core,
-be classless, ptu style "classes" are somewhat acceptable
-more explicit and unified power tiers
-magic more skillful, fluid, and flexible

A few things I'd like to see,
-growth more about versatility than number enlarging
-useable for my magetech setting
--tech rules
--ships, for sea, air, and space
--mass combat
-different health system (fort save, or modified wounds/vigor)
-DCs fixed in line with everything else
-better use of various materials
-more interesting crafting
-better match various subsystems

So thoughts on these or suggestions for other goals?

This message was last edited by the GM at 08:54, Sun 22 May 2016.

 player, 1 post
Mon 16 May 2016
at 11:51
Design step 1, Scope
Clarification needed:

ptu style classes???

Other than that it sounds fine.

A few (other) things to consider:

Should we also look at level less?

There're a few more or less classless systems out there. Mutants and masterminds comes into mind. It's available here:
And BESM d20 Revised - - have a very basic class called an adventurer that have more or less the same progression as the commoner but with the options to use character points to gain other class abilities like better BAB or saves or spellcasting etc.
The Spark
 GM, 14 posts
Mon 16 May 2016
at 12:10
Design step 1, Scope
PTU = pokemon tabletop united

PTU doesn't have true classes but it does have a few feat trees, some the trees are called a class. There are a couple minor rules regarding "class" feats.

Personally, I'd rather not go too far into modding here. I have a unique system called rnr which basically goes all out changing everything, basically a new system that is fairly well compatible with d20.

This is meant to be less of a new system, and more of a mod.

I can post reference to my rnr system as well if interested though.
The Spark
 GM, 15 posts
Thu 19 May 2016
at 16:22
Design step 1, Scope
Seems this is going to be a very busy week for me.

In any case, before I got interrupted (by work, not people here),

One occasional participant already asked to not go down that route, and while I like levelless (rnr has no levels), I think going levelless would be straying too far from core d20 which has a great deal tied to level and many things tied to class can more smoothly be tied to level than trying to decouple them from level based advancement.

Levels are also wonderful benchmarks for the tier of play desired. If you want superheroes, you don't play level 1, likewise, if you want "just off the farm" you don't play level 20.

Generic class,
3.5 unearthed arcana also has basic/generic classes for which you can just buy class features and such, but I think that if you are just making one class, then why are you making a class at all?

In any case, no one has a problem with the current scope, so I will sometime this week make a thread on one of these aspects to develop further.

One thing I do think needs to be clarified is what type of play expectations are we going to have?

I see a triangle between three basic extremes, The first, orange, is where players build characters from the mechanics and then afterwards dress up the mechanical build with narrative, this side also tends to favor bypassing narrative solutions to obstacles by just simply rolling instead (I.E. A trap! I roll disable device. Success, lets move on.). The second side, purple, builds a narrative concept first, then tries to get as close as possible with the mechanics, this side also overcomes obstacles narratively using rolls, often with circumstance bonuses/penalties based on how good the idea is, to simply determine success but rolls usually can't be made without attempting something narratively, (I.E. A trap! How does it trigger? Via pressure plate to large to step around. I use some shims to jam the plate. Rolls success. The plate is just loose enough that you can get a few of those shims you've been carrying around to fit. It should be safe for you walk through now.) The third side, green, is the mechanics lite side, where mechanics are kept to a minimum, usually combat only.

Obviously supporting all three is nice, but I'd to lean more towards purple, like 3.0 did, but want to see what what you all think. Orange requires more limits for the sake of balance which eats into freedom of choice needed for purple, making it a balancing act between the two in a most subtle fashion.

This message was last edited by the GM at 09:00, Sun 22 May 2016.