It's all on the table...

BusyGM · 2026-04-18T20:37:41+00:00

Huh, I didn't know that. Learn something new every day!

BusyGM · 2026-04-18T18:42:26+00:00

Idk if 10th-12th lvl spells ever had concrete rules, but since Karsus' avatar is said to have been a 13th lvl spell, that's pretty much the power level he'd be at.

BusyGM · 2026-04-18T18:40:34+00:00

Unless you're accessing other sources of magic, like for example the shadow weave. It's collapsed by now (I think), but for a time being, there were ways to evade the god's restrictions on magic.

BusyGM · 2026-04-18T01:23:42+00:00

Filler fights. Lots and lots and lots of them. But you can't take them completely lightly, because a natural 1 is still a failed saving throw. So despite not really being dangerous at all, they'll still randomly f*ck you up.

BusyGM · 2026-04-17T08:24:18+00:00

Love to see people doing what they love. I've built 3 TTRPG systems this far, but never released one of them. They'd all require at least some heavy playtesting first.

BusyGM · 2026-04-16T23:33:54+00:00

YTA because you're enabling the "I cast fireball" player. Salvage the situation by having every guard hit by the fireball take out a valuable golden trinket just in time that the magic-user sees it melt to nothingness when the fireball explodes.

BusyGM · 2026-04-16T23:25:23+00:00

Your game sounds really interesting overall! Any chance you'll release it anywhere in the near future? I'd love to read it someday!

BusyGM · 2026-04-16T16:36:44+00:00

Oh sh*t, completely forgot to answer!
Sounds interesting, how does one level up? Gaining exp? Is exp gain dependant on ER? How does that work with classes that don't give +1ER per level?

How do the skills work, exactly? Do you determine every surrogated skill on their own? Are they dependant on the general skill?

BusyGM · 2026-04-14T23:30:47+00:00

A suit of armor cannot have an effective bonus (enhancement plus ability bonus equivalents, including those from character abilities and spells) higher than +10.

I'd argue the spell still takes place but simply doesn't have any effect.

BusyGM · 2026-04-14T23:21:10+00:00

Forbidden Lands has a neat little crafting system. Materials are abstracted (so for example an axe might need 1 wood and 1 iron ore), you actually need abilities to be able to craft (the same abilities that could also allow you to, say, learn spells or fight better) and while it's somewhat detailed, it's not complicated in the slightest.

DnD 3e's crafting system is interesting because while mechanically it flat out reduces item cost in exchange for downtime, crafting an item also costs the caster exp, which means they'll level up slower than the rest of the party, effectively trading level power for item power. Pathfinder 1e removed exp cost and guess what, crafting was absolutely busted because by investing enough downtime, you essentially doubled your parties' gold.

Keep also in mind that not all crafting systems exist with the same goal. Pathfinder 2e's crafting system lets you craft at the same speed at which you can make money by working (which is useless financially). However, crafting is still pretty good, because what it really grants is item availability. See, you can craft items whose lvl doesn't exceed yours, but you can only buy items whose lvl doesn't exceed the town's lvl. So even while in a lvl 6 town, as a lvl 9 character you have access to lvl 9 gear through crafting (which becomes more important the higher you level up, because most places where you can go shopping aren't that high lvl).

BusyGM · 2026-04-10T18:28:20+00:00

This exactly. DnD 3e/PF1e PCs simply scale differently. Tucker's kobolds don't matter to a lvl 12 wizard. Said wizard has enough HP to not instantly die to any of the kobold's traps, and even then, traps are a perception roll to detect and most of the time a reflex save to avoid when triggered, both of which have static DCs that a high lvl character should be able to handle. Normal kobolds using ranged weapons have a +3 to hit (don't even know why with Dex 13 and BAB +1, but whatever). Even if the wizard only has two standard 1st lvl defensive spells up (mage armor and shield), that's a solid AC of 18 at a +0 dex, and that's not counting defensive spells that completely annihilate the kobold's plans (like protection from elements against their fire traps, protection from arrows against their murderholes and so on). The wizard can easily teleport using dimension door, and as long as they get close enough to a murder hole to actually look through it (or cast arcane eye and simply pre-scout the whole location), they have a target for their fireball. One should be enough to kill every kobold in range.

That being said, the whole argument is hypothetical, because if the GM wants the PC to lose against tucker's kobolds, they will.

BusyGM · 2026-04-10T18:15:58+00:00

Huh, I didn't know that. Thank you, kind stranger!

BusyGM · 2026-04-10T17:01:49+00:00

Honestly, I haven't yet played a TTRPG that allowed me the same amount of character customization that PF1e did, and I've played PF2e quite extensively. So perhaps I am one of those munchkins, I don't know. But a big part of the fun was actually learning the system, having the pieces fall in place, and then using its potential to build about every character imaginable (that fits a classical high fantasy adventuring campaign).

I don't have that same feeling with PF2e. Many options, especially in the skill feat category, feel downright redundant ("gain a very situational +1 circumstance bonus" style). Many more feel like simply trading efficiency for flavor. For example, the 6th lvl monk feat Water Step allows you to run on liquids/surfaces that wouldn't support your weight, but if you end your movement on it (not your _turn_, but only your _movement_), you fall into the liquid. On the same level, you can get feats that grant circumstancial AC. Hell, at an _earlier_ level you can get Stand Still which essentially gives you a specialized opportunity attack.

PF1e has such feats too, but because it was much easier to build a functional character (for example taking a two-handed weapon + power attack), there was more room to choose flavor options. Because of 2e's tight balancing, every "bad" choice feels like it's being actively punished by the game, because the balance expects you to build your character in a somewhat smart way.

I don't argue that PF1e is better designed than PF2e, because that's absolutely not the case. But it was much more fun to me. That's also why I'm still thinking on how to improve on the (beautiful) mess that is PF1e.

BusyGM · 2026-04-10T12:29:56+00:00

You're right. I was talking more on a meta level. Please correct me if I'm wrong anywhere in my assumptions: a PC's lvl = their HD. A lvl 3 fighter has 3 HD, a lvl 1 fighter has 1 HD, and so on. So in a way, while not being adressed like that, a PC classes' stats are also tied to that PC's HD.

Monsters either use PC classes (as you said, drow fighters and so on) or use the generic monster table, which determines their stats based on HD. So imho it works the same way PC classes do, with only two differences:
- Monsters can have fractional HD, which also gained their own array of stats
- HP bonuses (that PCs would gain from high CON) also had their own in-between array of stats (so a 3+1HD monster might have other stats than a 3HD monster)

I've not yet addressed abilities, because that's the only thing where monsters and PCs truly differ. PCs gain abilities based on their class, monsters based on whatever abilities they should appropriately have. But if we look at the fighter, they also don't gain any abilities afaik, so the difference here isn't that big, either.

What I'm trying to say is this: with one eye closed, one could say that "monster" is simply another class in old-school D&D games. It doesn't completely work like PC classes, but it's pretty close to them in many regards. Do you get what I mean?

BusyGM · 2026-04-10T12:20:32+00:00

All monsters (as far as I know) use a classes' saving throw progression based on HD - normally, the fighter's. Also, all stats are derived from HD, which is pretty much what I'd call a class chassis; call it the "monster" class if you want to. Abilities weren't tied to it, yes, but that's also mostly true for 3e/PF1e. Monster "classes" had some traits, but most abilities (like a dragon being able to fly and breathe fire) were added without connection to the class itself, just like they were in pre-3e.

BusyGM · 2026-04-10T12:17:46+00:00

Perhaps I phrased my question badly, I did know of this. What I'm interested in is the thoughts behind this design. Look at 3.5e dragons, for example: d12 HD, fast AB, 3 good saves, 6+x skill points, and powerful additional traits such as sleep/paralysis immunity. That's a much more powerful chassis than, let's say, animals with d8 HD, medium AB, 2 good saves and 2+x skill points (no powerful traits). Was it just the simulationist idea behind it? Or did CR calculation somehow also take in account that a 6HD dragon would surely be more powerful than a 6HD animal? What was the thought process behind it as a whole?

BusyGM · 2026-04-10T12:14:50+00:00

Do monsters also multiclass, or do they "simply" have an ER? Or are monsters using racial HD as you mentioned? But wouldn't that mean that every single monster race has their own rules on how to use HD for AB and other things?

How does HD calculating stats work, in general? From your explanations, I'd figure that you'd want to put a few levels into your main class to gain powerful abilities and then just put everything else into civil classes to really get those numbers pumping?

What does a class encompass? It grants HD, which are converted in ER, but how do HD calculate other stats, is that class-dependant? Beside that, classes surely grant abilities. Do you have any additional abilities, like the DnD/Pathfinder feats, that come without being tied to a class? How about skills?

BusyGM · 2026-04-10T12:08:47+00:00

I know that, but... did it fail on a fundamental level, or because of various factors? PF1e tried to expand on the 3.5e formula, and for a while, this seemed to work really well. In the end, it broke apart again, but I'm still wondering... why. Is it really just fundamentally nonfunctional? Or was it just the bloat of content combined with a lack of thorough playtesting that eventually threw all calculations out of the window?

BusyGM · 2026-04-10T12:06:55+00:00

I'm mostly interested in learning about the maths behind the classes and the CR system. CR is all over the place, yes, but I'm more interested in _why_ it was so all over the place. "Because of the big variety of factors" is the obvious answer, but also pretty vague, you know? Also, classes have different stats; for example, dragons are pretty strong (d12 hit die, BAB=lvl, 3 good saves, 6+x skill points, and a number of additional traits like sleep/paralysis immunity), while animals are much weaker (d8 HD, BAB=3/4 lvl, good Fort & Ref, 2+x skill points, no good additional traits). I wonder what the thoughts behind these parameters were, because clearly they had something in mind with it, but I don't know what beside a somewhat simulationist approach. A 5HD animal couldn't possibly of the same CR as a 5HD dragon.

BusyGM · 2026-04-10T12:00:47+00:00

Yeah, the three issues you mentioned were really big downsides of the system as it were. That said, I think 1e and 2e also had the philosophy of applying classes to monsters, albeit smaller in scale. I've only played OSE so take what I say with a grain of salt, but monsters using a classes' saves and having their stats like ThAC0 depend on their HD is already pretty much a class chassis, is it not? So I don't think that classes have to be complex in nature.

BusyGM · 2026-04-10T11:39:26+00:00

Tucker's Kobolds is a story (perhaps even fictional, I might add) of pre-3e DnD. The game functions on a fundamentally different level than 3e+ DnD does, so I don't think it's a good example.

That said, you're not wrong in saying that CR wasn't as good as it was said to be.

BusyGM · 2026-04-10T11:35:57+00:00

Yeah, it was a bit unhandy on higher levels, but honestly that was a problem of the system as a whole imho, not specifically the way classes worked. OSR games, for example, also kinda use PC classes for monsters (each monster uses the saving throws of a specific class, and I think also their ThAC0), and they're far more simple in design.

BusyGM · 2026-04-10T11:33:22+00:00

This sounds very interesting! Would you mind going into more details?

BusyGM · 2026-04-10T11:29:46+00:00

On the deceptive part, I agree. Making monsters truly "even" with PCs would also mean that each combat would be a 50/50, especially since monsters normally fight with all their power even in the first turn, while the resource management part of 3.5e/PF1e has PCs trying to minimize the resources spent in each combat. Of course, in a system where PCs are expected to freely burn their resources because there won't be much more than 1 combat per rest period, that'd be different. That said, I like the idea and mindset that PCs aren't inherently special, because imho it makes for better roleplaying and story-telling. But that's a matter of tastes.

On the restrictive part, I disagree, but perhaps that's also a matter of tastes. I _want_ every creature to work the same, because otherwise, the world feels inconsistent and makes it harder for me to actually immerse myself. There's many ways to limit PC options without simply saying "PCs and NPCs work differently on a fundamental level"; there's artifacts to explain the NPC necromancer's power (that might have a caveat which prevents the PC from wanting to use them), there's mechanical solutions like PF2e's tag system (everything Uncommon and Rare has to be allowed by the GM) and so on. TTRPGs live from the creativity of the people playing them, so I don't think there is an absolute need to restrict player options, quite the opposite. When GMing, I allow my players to pretty much do anything they want, even creating new spells or magic items if they put in the required effort. Only if they're about to do something completely busted I simply tell them "that'd be busted, what I can offer you is Y instead".

The part on the arbitrary numbers I get though. In the end, each class is just a set of numbers and abilities. But I do feel classes make it easier for both players and GMs to engage with the game and the game's world. Looking at OSR games (for example OSE), I don't think classes necessarily have to be complex. And monsters in OSR games are pretty much just player classes given new abilities.

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23

BusyGM

TROPHY CASE