Видео

That very well may be true. Part of why I mentioned the hand crossbow. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised to see a cowboy western revolver either.

Noted. and thankyou for letting me know. Next one released after this is titled "Correct Rules" (11June2024). Let me know if the sound quality is up to par.

I think a lot of people feel similar

It looks like you've caught the vision.

I think your example is less a problem with classes in general, and more a problem of doing a bad job creating classes that represent an archetype.

It looks like my video is outdated already! Thanks for the update.

To be honest, I agree with most of what you're saying here. Skill systems offer A LOT more flexibility. Skill based systems have issues too, of course. Decision-paralysis (especially for new players) being at the top. That said, the worst offenders for 'bad classes' are the ones which--not only have the problems of a class-based system--but also fail to deliver on having the class give a strong identity.

I'm not sure if I prefer class-based or class-less, but I find I'm leaning more and more toward being lightweight as well. More than that though, I find I am heavily inclined toward "open" systems, as opposed to ones which are "closed" in that all available options are pre-defined. I think modern games are somewhat starved for "open" systems in games... which is a shame, since it limits creative freedom.

You're absolutely right about it being something an experienced player could track. It's manageable. My point is mainly to illustrate that monks are a more cerebral, thinking, class that a fighter or barbarian. That comes through both through the addition of Ki, and through the choice of stance to use. I don't mean to say that complexity is "bad". It's simply that the Monk has a greater number of options and decisions available to them by way of their class features. Also--don't tell anyone this--I may have missed the fact that you do not have access to all the stances, and instead only learn 2 at level one.

I can't change the existing videos without re-uploading them, but this Monday's video should be better. Tell me if I get it right?

I may need to do exactly that. I've held off on reviewing his spellcasting and spell modification system so far, but that may be the right time to do it.

Glad you think so!

1. If you're thinking of upping all your DC's, maybe change the +2 on your turn to a -2 on other peoples turns instead. That way you don't have to remind yourself each time you set a DC. 2. I hadn't thought of the utility for new groups, to encourage shy players. I hope you're right!

Glad to hear you're exited about it. Let me know how the test goes!

Not sure on that one. The story and identity of each class seems pretty well baked in to the mechanics for each one, but at the same time there seems to be creative freedom in (for example) what effects you can get from spells you cast. It seems to me, each table will have the choice to rule-lawyer to their hearts content (since rules for specific maneuvers, conditions etc seem fairly inclusive), or to choose a more freeform approach.

@@ModularGames The freeform is strongly encouraged. That can sometimes be limited to how players/DMs manage it.

Looking forward to that. Honestly, the ability to boost and *transform* spells by spending more mana is enough to have me excited by itself.

I take that as a compliment, sir. Do you mind if I inquire the differences?

many experienced players forget how steep the learning curve really is. (I've also been guilty of this)

I started with thaco, it was a WTF moment. Now 5e well other then the, books not being laid out the best, it hasn’t been so bad. But I think your absolutely right. We forget.

@@wills8611 not sure why established companies have so much trouble with organization and layout, when indies never do...

@@ModularGames I’d blame the editing of the books. They don’t look at correlation. By cutting something’s out, rather the relationship an item has to another item causes a break. You gotta read the books from cover to cover to make sure you got it all right, and it’s easy for the reader to understand.

So much here... rather than answering you directly, I'm mostly going to just double check that I understand you. 1. You seem to lean pretty far to the side of wanting class features completely divorced from the lore story and narrative. Is that right? You seem to want those elements to be optional. 2. the fun of miracles is largely to have game mechanics match up with narrative and lore. Given '1.' this seems to naturally be something you are not exited about. Given the specific mechanics for miracles, if you like Contingent Spells, or Glyph-of-Warding Shenanigans, (I do) I think they'll be a lot of fun. 3. I don't think I followed everything you were saying about Warlocks having specific spells which define them. You seem to like the idea of Warlocks having at will and continuously active abilities, rather than traditional "spells" or features with cooldowns or resource management. That's a lot like the dnd 3.5 warlock, and I agree that option really seems to shine as a kind of class identity for them. 4. 'Warlocks as a way to a way to represent all kinds of things which don't fit into the normal class structure'. Like lycanthropy, monster abilities, etc. I could probably put together a version of the warlock that does this. It would still be using the bones of the dnd, but I think it could work well. let me know if you have a hunger for something like that. 5. Class feature trees... well, that's a bit out-of-scope for this video, but in general, yes. Class feature trees are much preferred over a set progression system.

​ @ModularGames For my own gaming I prefer the mechanics being applicable totally independently... to be applied to any lore; after the lore/concept of the situation has been imagined, then rules chosen to best represent that... not choose the rule and then make a concept or situation represent the rule. It's a broad topic for discussion... IF that way of thinking is followed for how to use the Warlock, then some consideration might be taken toward design. Others would still imagine a Warlock being primarily about the magic. Miracles as contingent triggers might suit that... but maybe suit Wizards better. I guess that puts the conversation back into the order of conceptualization again... "here's a cool way to do spells" then being applied to Warlocks because you like the cool way to do spells. Conversation seems better to be discussed while tabling the Warlock and just thinking about the magic system. Immediately, I remember how Vancian magic is supposed to work. Spells being prepared as complicated mystic words of power and ritual grafted temporarily into a Wizard's mind... released as the spell is cast and needing to be prepared/memorized again to be cast again. It already seems like a very similar concept to how you've described miracles, unless there's something I've missed. ... so then, that brings me back to my thinking about the mechanic itself. It seems more Wizard than Wizard, falling back into the "problem" in playing Wizards in that situationally they are possibly too effective while most of the time actually doing nothing at all... if their magic are all prepared contingency triggers, then they either don't have a lot of gameplay interaction in moments when they are triggered or have no gameplay interaction because they aren't triggered. If I were to work with such a system, I'd lean toward the feeling of "spell binding". Find some way to expedite and apply the process of preparing those miracle triggers to situations... make it something that can be done during or immediately before a combat where the caster has some idea what they would be trying to "spell bind" and then resolve it like a crew trying to constrain a monster/foe by tethering it with a consecutive series of ropes; the MU trying to establish series of "rules"... magical effects having more consecutive control or impact over it. ... For Warlocks? Well.. it would be different if those miracles would be something like the influence of a Patron. A fiend patron? Those miracle triggers might be imaginable as concepts like soul chains or dominating contract clauses which gradually constrain the victim. Or, something more versatile conceptually; the "binds" being assertions of influence... a Great Old One patron establishing psychic links or control, an Archfey beguiling them or misdirecting their will, etc etc. .. I suppose that I am veering too far away from the established spell lists. It looks more like the old 2nd Edition Psionics system. ... on #3, Eldritch blast, Hellish Rebuke, Hex... these things make a Warlock distinct. It offers something separate from the other MUs... an example of class features/skills/mechanics providing. It's kind of how many seem to come to the choice of multiclassing into Warlock... getting a cantrip and a spell... it's similar thinking to dipping for a level or two for the reason of getting a feature or ability... and yeah, a lot like 3rd/3.5

Another idea for a magic system for Warlocks... Import the dot mechanics from White Wolf. Get the Disciplines from Vampire, Rage/Gnosis from Werewolf, Glamour from Changeling, etc... and pair them with things like Humanity and Clarity which tie the consequences of these supernatural elements into their characters as obligations/challenges.

Perhaps you should consider "Promises as a MAGIC SYSTEM?" , a video by TheTaleFoundry , or some of their other magic systems videos. But that video seems to have some ideas which might go with your Miracle magic.

@@hellsente7826 I've seen it before, but I'll double check. Thankyou.

Hopefully this wasn't taken poorly. It does seem really pedantic; examining the meaning of language choices. It's to frame the ideas for discussion. Questions expecting answers not to defend with but to analyze in context of. Also may come across as accusatory or judgmental... not intended to be so.

@@hellsente7826 To be honest, your initial comment came off as accusatory, but I was uncertain what I was being accused of. Regardless of that, I may need to re-do this video. I'd like to re-frame the statements and suggestions without sounding so much as though I am opposed to how old school games do things, since I really like those games.

@@ModularGames Yes, I regretted the tone that my comment was delivering 😅 It happens sometimes when I'm engaging in a very emotionally detached way, or a way which I am considering to be exclusively logical. Please consider it an appeal to some capacity I see in you for being able to handle that kind of INTJ business

Thankyou for the compliments! I'd love to review and 'tear apart' your game system when it's ready! -When building a system for myself, i leaned toward removing to hit rolls as well. -also, with monetary systems, I just stated 1cp=$10, 1sp=$100, and 1gp=$1000 and things seem to flow naturally from there. I'll try and get some contact info onto my youtube profile soon, so trading notes will be easier.

@@ModularGames That would be great. I’d love to throw some ideas around with other game makers. Been a while since I chatted about that. And it’s certainly hard to make everything by yourself. My friend and I started this years ago and he dropped out so I just have been working on it for on and off a dozen years or so. Yeah, honestly, great minds once again. Thats very similar to my value for coinage as well. That’s much closer to actual monetary value. - DnD gold is like 20 bucks or so at best for 1GP. Kinda weird to make gold so worthless. My players actually get excited when I give gold as silver is the more common coinage for most of the game. Platinum is jaw dropping with how valuable it is. I found that rolling to hit means a lot less if you build mechanics up to ignore that. We just roll for critical and potency. But that’s another conversation.

I knew Paladin was previously intended to be included. I'm curious how it turns out as a subclass, especially since 'spellblade' does not sound like it has much of a divine or crusader feel to it, on face value.

should be at least one more from me coming this monday

Well, the thing about rangers gaining knowledge after fighting something, is that it's not lore agnostic. If you want your character abilities to be completely divorced from the lore and flavor of the character, DC20 is not the right game for that. As far as there being too many classes... I fully support GMs limiting class selection. Especially if X class is only available in X country, etc.

@@ModularGames There's some shades/degrees to the concept of classes being able to provide a balanced mechanic which can be applied flexibly. You already see a lot of the potential applications in, say, the Cleric class... deity being quite possibly being left up to an agreement between player and DM in all sorts of creative ways. Some people discuss the power source of a Cleric possibly being a philosophy, some of it being the church itself or a belief structure... could be one's own inner nature or emerging RNA/DNA which contains a nifty power source which the PC would need to navigate a relationship to. Meanwhile, the rules exist to contain and balance that situation and development with the rest of the setting and group. On the other hand if, as in 2nd Edition DnD for example, Paladins need to be exactly Paladins and follow a very specific purpose in the setting, following the moral code actually being something which balances their power... then that's very cool, for that setting. DC20 doesn't go as far as 2nd Edition D&D. Paladins aren't what they once were. It seems though that the answer being chosen by types of players like optimizers is to make more crunchy classes and subclasses. Add more feats, etc... when a little bit of imagination goes a long way without making the entire game about the character sheet (instead making the character sheet work for you). "Not the right game for that" seems tragically dismissive, to miss the point, and to serve misplaced priorities. I see a lot of potential in DC20 to provide exactly what I've described without needing all the classes they plan to release in expansions and magazines. It is, as you've said, pretty flexible in its possible use and encourages "creativity and thinking outside the box"

@@hellsente7826 I apologize if I came off as dismissive. DC20 *is* very flexible. What I wanted to point out is that DC20 is made specifically to represent the flavor and feeling of the 'class fantasy' as part of the mechanics. The dungeon coach talks about that in his own class videos, and it's something that DnD (for example) does far less. Given that the class fantasy is an integral part of the mechanics of each class's granted powers, it would be expected that separating the two would not be as easy as in other games. All that being said... it is sometimes surprising how two very different character concepts can utilize similar or identical features... including when those features were explicitly designed to represent something different.

Thanks for the heads up. on reviewing it again, you are right and it's pretty quiet at parts. I'll try and improve that on future videos.

A lot of people feel that way. Check out my video on DC20 (if you haven't already). That's what a lot of people wished 6e would be, and as a bonus, it's not by WotC.

3.5 was where I learned first. By comparison, DC20 is much simpler, I agree. It's really only complicated compared to rules-light-OSR.

In some ways, that's why it's easier for people to jump on board with new games, rather than being exited about updates to old ones. More options are exciting, but it's the restrictions and weaknesses that really tell a story. (Sanderson's 2nd law)

I'm not *actually* an expert, but yes. That them being leaders in a pagan culture opposing the romans lines up with my understanding as well. I couldn't actually get rid of wild shape completely, because people would riot. I like the idea of adding animal totems: perhaps as an option for the "Druid's Path" feature? What kinds of benefits do you think such a totem would grant?

This sounds like the kind of thing that could be implemented really cleanly and easily. 'Only people who have ceremonial relationships with... will have spirit signatures'. In that case it would really only be priests, knights, etc which would have them. Although, if a certain community was ruled by a dragon, beholder, etc, that might have a strong enough influence to create spirit signatures as well. If that were the case, people from different nations could be identified by spirit signature, even if they were not closely connected to the rulers--just exposed to their supernatural aura. This could be used to drive a story, rather than detract... I think. Overall though, you make a strong point: over emphasis on alignment can derail from other focuses in the story, when poorly handled that is.

@@ModularGames The way I'm imagining it, it could be like "The Great Game" between intelligence operatives of the CIA and KGB. They knew... (know?) how to recognize each other and interacted in what's like a parallel world. Definitely having an effect, but not necessarily known by regular people beyond what their rank or station is when it's a public office.... while loyalty and what those agents actually DO is watched and the rumor mill of those on the inside discuss and debate on their methodologies constantly.

You know.. just for the sake of conversation.

In some ways, alignment systems are easiest to track when they are simply fealty to a certain power... They seem more interesting to me when they have nothing to do with that, but it's certainly easier to track.

@@ModularGames Yeah, definitely more interesting to analyze and compare from different philosophies and have robust arguments. But you don't need a game mechanic to do that... and trying would be very very difficult to practice "show don't tell" with, especially without that debate (and all the cognitive dissonance thereof) eclipsing the rest of the gameplay

glad to do it. thanks for the comment.

--Yes, specialization points are a replacement to Arcane Recovery. Arcane Recovery gives spell slots back directly, but because the specialization points can be used to cast spells directly, and come back EVERY short rest, rather than just 1/long rest, they actually give you more overall. --Subclasses are expected to give new uses for specialization points, and features which highlight a play-style, rather than a spell school. One of them was noted as blurring the line between Wizard and Artificer classes. --There was another feature slated for inclusion in the core Wizard class, which didn't make the cut this time around: spending specialization points to up cast spells. What level do you think that would be good for? 5? 8?

Thankyou for telling me: I'll start working on fixing that. Was it a periodic noise, or just a constant hum??? (the solution is much easier for one of those than the other)

To be honest, the base rules fall pretty similar to 5E. The classes really shine though: it moves classes away from 'big bag of tools' and more toward 'character vision' and role.

I appreciate that!

That's absolutely true! What I would point out, however, is that a high level spell (high mana cost) which has initiator roll high is literally impossible to counter unless the contesters use a similarly high level spell. several contesters using low level spells will NEVER be enough, even if you have 100 of them.

@@ModularGames we'll have to wait for the spell overhaul that's coming on beta version 0.10 =D

um, yes... I need to look closer at the initiative rolls... that sounds weird.

@@ModularGames I think that it has room for a DM to preserve sensicality 😅 Just sometimes the DC's narrative style is gonzo enough to rub me the wrong way.

What a fun question!!! Generally all the rules seem to come in sets of 2-3, but almost none are un-separable. DC20 is a Modular, and Customizable game!

@@ModularGames I feel like I should trust your take on this ;) At very least it seems clear that most DMs would be able to adjust what they disagree with.

Agree with this comment on the action economy working very well!

I think I should give a spoiler on one of my future videos... If action points can be spent on other players turns, is there a strict reason to limit which actions can be used off turn? I don't think there is. For some specialized actions, there may be a tag line added saying "only reaction" or "only on your turn", but as a general rule, any action could be taken at any time. In short, I don't actually dislike action points. I simply think that some additional baggage from the previous system was carried over un-necessarily.

@@ModularGames I’ve seen a lot of comments concerned that unrestricted use of action points off turn would step on the turn of other players. I think having off turn actions basically as reactions that require a trigger addresses this concern and helps in DC20’s case to reinforce the ability of your character to use AP when it’s important like defense and to encourage cooperative play like with reaction based help actions and buffs.

@@GlenFinney that is generally the primary concern people raise. Another way to phrase it though is "If players can take their actions any time they want, why would they wait to take the action on their own turn?". If that question can be answered in a satisfying way, I don't think players will be nearly as worried about it, and disruptions to play will be reduced. Another point--which the dungeon coach has made many times himself--is the potential for collaborative actions. Acting on another players turn can be disruptive... or it can be cooperative.

@@ModularGames in my experience playing and running DC20 since the off turn actions are all reactions requiring a trigger they aren’t always triggered and when they are, it is most often on a monster’s turn not on a fellow player’s turn, as most of them are defensive or in the vein of opportunity attacks. The ones that trigger on another player’s turn are typically buffs to that player and not the other player doing something off turn on their own. So while players interrupt the GM’s turns all the time, the other players love it because it’s helping them as a team. Typically only about two players share a turn and in fact some players will delay their turn to go together as combos can be powerful and fun. When not doing combos or alternating actions then it tends to default to one player does their stuff then the other player does. The player who is more ready to act tends to go first in such situations giving the other player a bit more time to decide their next move. In play it’s honestly been a great experience.