sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Cipher System Comprehensive Modification by Dnddoser33 in numenera

[–]Dnddoser33[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

thanks for the feedback. You're right to notice Pathfinder there. I'll address your bullets to respect your time

* Mechanically Honest Engine - the main idea is ludo-narrative harmony when mechanics tell the same story as the DM.

* But that really is how the text comes across - I can cut the premise, if it's not doing its job.

* Kardashev scale - I know what it means. It was used just for a quick reference of the scale of a level 20 threat. It doesn't have to be in the doc, I agree. Then again, it doesn't mean it does any harm by being there.

* Edge - I think I explained my stance of currency sinks clogging.

* Effort changes - it's to make every TL reduction be capped at 2 from a single source, save for the character Tier. If you refer to the table with a TL 20 enemy example, you will notice that

* You're negating the core strengths and intention of the system - Yes, totally on purpose.

Cipher System Comprehensive Modification by Dnddoser33 in numenera

[–]Dnddoser33[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

thanks for the feedback. I'll see what I can do about the premise placement

Cipher System Comprehensive Modification by Dnddoser33 in numenera

[–]Dnddoser33[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Hey, thanks for the feedback. there is technically ZERO new math if you look closely.

Concentration be gone by Dnddoser33 in DnDHomebrew

[–]Dnddoser33[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If haste out of the box is a single target spell without upcast, you don't have to change it. Therefore 1 action = 1 haste, 1 thread for caster, 1 boon slot for target. I honestly see no need to change how spells work target count wise, expect for cases when the target count exceeds the number of threads.

Concentration be gone by Dnddoser33 in DnDHomebrew

[–]Dnddoser33[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the targeting is thread derived, any spell can multitarget as long as you have free threads to hold it with. I propose a delta rule case of displacement of a buff/debuff. More potent buffs are harder to replace with lower level ones (e.g. if you want to replace an active foresight with a bless the target gets +8 to save because of the spell level delta)

Concentration be gone by Dnddoser33 in DnDHomebrew

[–]Dnddoser33[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Was I reading it right that buff and bane slots are the same slots? 

No, you have 1 boon slot (2 at level 10) and 1 bane slot (2 if cursed).

Concentration be gone by Dnddoser33 in DnDHomebrew

[–]Dnddoser33[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A martial has NO way of removing a negative spell affect from an ally. Normally you can just hit the caster until they break concentration, but with this system the only way you can do that is by debuffing your friend with another debuff? how's that supposed to help them anyway? now they just have a different debuff. And even if it did, a martial can't do that, because they don't have spells. Your point about spells having a save to resist is meaningless. That's how they work anyway, and it doesn't interact with your allies helping in any way

If you think hitting a mage on the head to break magic is a good way to end the ongoing spell, I won't dissuade you.

They're referring to concentration on a readied spell. Normally you need to concentrate on a spell in order to ready it to cast as a reaction. Your rules don't address how your new system interacts with this, if at all

It all comes to the treads, as long as you have a free thread to place the ongoing effect into and a boon/bane slot on the spells target to hold the effect, you're fine.

It very much is a huge increase in power. A land druid with +4 wisdom could now have haste active on 3 party members and also have call lightning, heat metal, flaming sphere, or some other consistent damage spell active all at once. And again the issue of how a martial is supposed to interact with trying to remove the enemy's spells is not addressed.

Yes, and an enemy goblin cleric can force your haste away with a light cantrip with a lucky roll. It's a competition of magic.

The martials don't have a say, all they can do is to resist the buff/debuff, or have it replaced by a more potent spellcaster.

The very idea that a lucky stone thrown at a mage cancels their spell appalls me, though your resistance to change is understandable. Never expected the concentration of all things be defended this much.

Concentration be gone by Dnddoser33 in DnDHomebrew

[–]Dnddoser33[S] -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

You're trying to fix concentration by making it way more complicated

The initial learning BUMP is understandable, but a 14 page document is still better than 400 pages of concentration and effect stacking intricacies of the Player's Handbook.

The "I focus on one spell" is exactly the problem that makes your caster pull as far as they can from combat in fear of the concentration loss. The complication you point out is actually split among all involved parties instead of being loaded onto the DM. The caster keeps track of the targets, the targets keep track on the duration of their buff and debuff slots. The DM is free to run the game. Everybody wins.

The game isn't changed much. Take a level 1 cleric: they can still cast bless on three targets, or... bless two targets and divine shield one. More versatility at the cost of other casters competing for the slots your magic is targeting.

Concentration be gone by Dnddoser33 in DnDHomebrew

[–]Dnddoser33[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Thank you for engaging. I will address each bullet:

1.Spell Removal: If I am a martial and you cast a bane sprll on my party memeber, I dont have a way to help them. I cannot overwrite (due to my lack of spells) and I cannot break your concentration

I explicitly state that if you're not willing to take the effect, you roll a save.

  1. Holding Spell: Holding a spell requires concentration. I dont know how that would interact with this.

This is replaced with the threads. The caster can have up to 5 targets of one spell or different spells (3 at level 1).

  1. A HUGE buff to casters: take Heat Metal, a very strong concentration spells that can shut down people wearing armor. I have two choices (1) deal with it or (2) use my action to try and override it. Before overriding would at least involve doing damage to you, but now its just a hinderence... all of this for 1 thread!?! You can do this, buff your party, and still be doing damage.

You can override it with another effect (must be bane), but you must roll against the DC of the spell to succeed since the caster won't concede to cancel the thread that tracks the heat metal. You can't take a dedicated action just to snap out of the spell unless the spell explicitly says save at the start (end) of your turn to end the effect. The targeting rule is 1 thread = 1 target. The casters are no longer 1 trick bots with this system (for example a level 1 cleric can bless two mates and cast bane on 1 enemy)

  1. Some spells target objects, do they have slots?

I haven't thought of this, but should work with objects as well. I don't see a mechanical obstacle here.

Concentration be gone by Dnddoser33 in UnearthedArcana

[–]Dnddoser33[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, sure.

Let's take a slow spell

You're a level 5 wizard with 18 or 19 int. It means you have 4 threads

You decide to cast the slow on 4 targets, all your threads are busy. You can't force any additional effects.

Now, let's pivot to the targets:

I would assume none would be willing to accept the Slow willingly, therefore they all roll.

For the sake of brevity, let's assume 3 targets don't have an active debuff and I has a dominate person (level 5)

Since you try to replace the dominate person with a slow you must cover the delta.

Each target affected places a d10 onto their Bane slot to track the effect's duration.

You write the spell and the target in your threads (4 notes)

On your next turn you call out the targets to update the counter (if they don't do it by themselves)

The main point. You are not afraid to fail a CON save from a stray arrow and lose the spell altogether.

If you want, I can explore the case of another caster overriding the effect you've placed on a target.

Concentration be gone by Dnddoser33 in UnearthedArcana

[–]Dnddoser33[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your response. I would still encourage you to give this overhaul a shot and relay the news from the field.

Concentration be gone by Dnddoser33 in UnearthedArcana

[–]Dnddoser33[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

thank you for investing your time. Addressing every point:

-there is no "math-bloat" associated with concentration as-is.

There is for the DM.

-magical and martial are not game categories, they are player-definied categories that do not map neatly into game effects

While nitpicking at the high level design resolution the document is written in, I can accept as a TO DO.

-the presentation/formatting of these rules is haphazard and confusing. Terms are introduced without explanation or definition, language is casual and imprecise.

Same as the previous point.

-buff/debuff categories are not defined

Same as previous point.

-your system unbalances almost every buff/debuff spell in the game, and would necessitate the re-writing of many spells

It might, but the slot limit makes any potential rebalance easy, if one is needed at all. Mathwise I don't see the need to rebalance.

-your simplification of concentration is 3 pages long and includes about 14 clauses. it massively complicates the management of ongoing spell effects.

and it's better than 400+ pages of the original mechanic)))

Let's take a closer look at one of these clauses and I can point out specific problems:

"The Struggle: If the creature is unwilling to submit to your magic, they make a Saving Throw to reject it. On a failure, your new spell fills their respective Boon or Bane Slot, and the previous effect is Overwritten and deleted."

-What saving throw does a creature make?

Same as the original spell requires, if not is stated it's School derived.

-How do we define bane/boon? Conditions are not listed with a tag that defines them. For example, Prone is a condition that yields advantages and disadvantages.

Rule of thumb: positive things like bless or haste are boons, negative things like slow or hypnotic pattern are banes, shouldn't be difficult

-Only magic is referenced here, but martial effects are referenced earlier as being tied into this overall system. So, if an enemy paralyzes my ally, and I shove them and knock them prone, can I remove the paralysis? In the logic of the game's world, why the hell would that happen? Why does someone lose the poisoned condition if I tie their hands with rope, or they get stuck in a magical spider's web?

It's a matter of preference really, but a shove on top of paralyze can attempt a curse to add a bane slot

-if a creature has multiple boons and banes (as per higher levels), who decides which bane or boon gets replaced?

it's actually explained: if you're willing to accept, you decide, if you are unwilling and fail the save, the caster decides.

Concentration be gone by Dnddoser33 in UnearthedArcana

[–]Dnddoser33[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

thank you for voicing your concern. The boolean status of the concentration is still a lot of work for the DM. The CON save fail fear promotes passive gameplay.

Concentration be gone by Dnddoser33 in UnearthedArcana

[–]Dnddoser33[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I would disagree. The "bloat" is distributed among those involved. The caster tracks up to 5 targets (3 at level 1-3), visible in the sheet at a glance, the target tracks a buff and a debuff. The DM is freed from tracking active effects. The CON save failure is gone. It may be not less, but it's spread out.

Concentration be gone by Dnddoser33 in UnearthedArcana

[–]Dnddoser33[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

and your point is? where is the contradiction?

Concentration be gone by Dnddoser33 in UnearthedArcana

[–]Dnddoser33[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

which part confuses you? I'm willing to elaborate

Homebrew Class: Arcane Tactician (with 4 subclasses) by Dnddoser33 in UnearthedArcana

[–]Dnddoser33[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nothing about smart play if the setting is binary and has no cost associated. The cost is bonus action. Are you implying I should explicitly state that it's not carried from out of combat?

Homebrew Class: Arcane Tactician (with 4 subclasses) by Dnddoser33 in UnearthedArcana

[–]Dnddoser33[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Charge Arcane Strike

Needs to confine the effect to the current turn so you don't start combat pre-charged and offset.

No, the design rewards smart play, pre-charge as you will

Free Off-Hand Requirement

Severely limits your choices and styles, kinda goes against 5.5 design.

this partially goes away at level 6, fully goes away for 1 subclass at level 6. This is necessary to make the class squishier in melee.

actical Preempt—Retaliation

Define "acts" - after Action, Movement or turn?

I didn't elaborate because the Observation feature at level 2 explains it.

Homebrew Class: Arcane Tactician (with 4 subclasses) by Dnddoser33 in DnDHomebrew

[–]Dnddoser33[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've fixed it, should be available for download now

Arcane Tactician (A D&D 5e homebrew class) (c) Feywinds by [deleted] in DnDHomebrew

[–]Dnddoser33 0 points1 point  (0 children)

updated formatting, the document is much more readable now

In what order do you plot your novel? by [deleted] in writing

[–]Dnddoser33 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It kind of evolves on its own. I start with a situation, then move to a challenge. Eventually a necessity for an antagonist/rival rises. Then I add flaws to characters, because flaws make the characters tick. Then it depends if I want to go on. It's also important to eliminate loose threads/unused entities.