Armor does not reduce damage. But damage must be greater than AC to lose hit points. omit magic Missile. That is how I designed my D&D multiverse. Happy 4th Coach.
This is based on the first 2 minutes, and I haven't seen the rest of the video yet, so maybe I'm jumping the gun and something similar is covered. "Armor class" should be referring to the style of armor you are wearing, IE heavy, medium, light, magic, or unarmored. That would be the "class" of armor you are wearing, just like the class of your character is fighter, barbarian, or rogue.
I don't think it makes a lot of sense in truth. Different types of armor made vast differences in battle, so reducing it to only two types of armor doesn't make a great deal of sense. A damage reduction system probably would make more sense, but it's also very crunchy. And how exactly is your martial skill going to impact weather in arrow storm like at say Crecy or Agincourt or Towton? It really doesn't matter how good you are with your sword or your poleaxe--what matters is how good your armor is and how well you use your shield if you have one. In a duel with someone, martial skill might mean you're harder to hit or that you're less likely to become fatigued. But when you actually look at some of the fighting manuscripts--armored fighting is treated as a completely different beast to unarmored fighting. Is a fight between an armored combatant and an unarmored one or a lightly armored one? Say where a man-at-arms is outfitted in hardened steel full plate harness and the other has a helmet and a gambeson? No. Far from it. Games should reflect this.
The number one thing that my new players always get confused is Attack Roll vs. Saving Throw. They cast a save spell against the enemy and immediately roll a d20 because it feels a lot more intuitive to think ,,I'm the one casting the spell so I should roll the die"
In Cyberpunk Red, ranged attacks are checks against a DV table, while melee attacks are opposed checks (your melee vs enemy's evasion) Also, in Cyberpunk, Armor reduces incoming damage by your armor points, and if damage pierces your armor you reduce your armor points by 1. Also, people with good reflexes can dodge bullets, changing the ranged attacks to opposed checks (your shooting skill vs enemy's evasion).
@@B4dr4bbit that's part of the fun! If you're terrified of death, you're not living the Cyberpunk fantasy. In Night City, it's not how you live. It's how you die.
What is Force damage? If it damages a target through kinetic force, how is it different from Bludgeoning. I think it's a misnomer if you mean damage generated by pure magical energy, and I would suggest changing it to Eldritch damage to go with Holy and Unholy.
I had the exact same thought about the name when working on my own system, I settled for "Defense" as well since shields also apply to "Armour Class", so it just makes more sense, cool video!
Rolling to hit a defense rather than have the creature do a save is a clear improvement. They did it in dnd 4e, and they should not have gone back in 5e.
Agreed. And having Fortitude, Reflex and Will also be defences was a really good system. Armour defence for physical strikes, fortitude for exertion/exhasting attacks, reflex for dodging, and will for Mental attacks. It was elegant and covered everything.
This is very timely as I'm working on my own system based on 5e and have been struggling to figure out which direction I wanted to go for armor and defense. 😅
The simplest way to port this to 5e would be to have the base AC be 8. Then have everyone add their proficiency bonus (or half) to their AC. That's at least covers the physical portion.
Personally I'm not a fan of opposed checks at all, reducing as many things as possible into passive values feels superior for running a game. If I could I'd prefer if NPCs are just a collection of passives and players (dice addicts) do most of the actual rolling.
I'm confused, so i'm not sure if you have another system to deal with what the equivalent of saves would be, but replacing everything with a target DC via physical/mental defense kind of writes yourself into a corner. Like, an explosion or pitfall spell or effect can miss you even if you're right in the middle of it?
So, the word class has a specific definition. Which is why it isn't confusing to use it more than once. Though using the word armor does create confusion, since it includes both evasiveness and toughness, and armor does not usually get associated with evasiveness.
The simplest way to port this to 5e would be to have the base AC be 8. Then have everyone add their proficiency bonus (or half) to their AC. That's at least covers the physical portion. Keeps things relatively aligned at early levels, but then opens the the throttle higher up. Without completely shooting bounded accuracy in the foot. It also follows spell and abilty save dc's by starting at 8 instead of 10, Which was always weird to me.
MCDM's new TTRPG is also adjusting their defense options. A Warrior with plate mail should play differently than a Monk with no armor but huge Dex. Armor should reduce incoming damage and Dex should keep you from being hit at all.
If you prefer to have the players making all the attack rolls, it reminds me of the Cypher/Numanera system where players roll for all attack and defense in combat instead of the GM rolling anything for monsters.
You should make a joke class called the Armor Class and they use their armor to beat people up. D&D kinda has something like that, the Battle Rager, but I feel the mechanic is odd, but it might work with your Grapple Maneuvers
My tastes are probably more crunchy than most, but I have always thought that having certainly weapons work better on certain types of armor should be reflected.
Gygax tried this two or three different ways in Chainmail and AD&D, and they were all more trouble than they were worth. A big part of the reason is that most combat is a PC in armor with a melee weapon vs a monster with a thick hide with natural weapons.
Simple fix for every table in 3 sentences. Armor does not reduce damage. But damage must be greater than AC to lose hit points. omit magic Missile. BOOM! make your combats amazing regardless of system.
@@Paradox-es3bl perhaps he meant the armor bonus that it gives over the baseline of 10? like the opposite of how corrosive damage affects armor and weapons. so chain mail would be have a Damage Threshold of 6. Might have to change how dexterity based armors are affected by this since it still favors it over heavier armors.
@@Paradox-es3blthis is probably assuming ac numbers have been re worked to be 1-10 ish I’m assuming. But I’m not sure I like that nooks become useless late game but it tends to be how video games work so idk
Sortof funny, seeing this. 4th edition D&D came to very similar conclusions as far as always wanting attacks to be rolled vs. a static defense number, even if it was something more nebulous like a mental defense. Not a bad route to go down. They didn't simplify things down to 2 defenses, though, and went for 4 (Armor, Reflex, Fortitude, and Will), which will have some advantages and some disadvantages over what you're doing, I suppose.
I've been working on a TTRPG system for a more super-hero themed worldbuilding, and ran into the same concerns. I don't like the idea of armor class as a concept, so I used Avoidance, which is the higher of your block and dodge values. That's what damaging attacks target. Control effects target defenses specifically for conditions, and you can get boosts to individual condition defenses from your power selections.
sounds cool. One thing I will say, I don't see any reason why Big hits wouldn't apply your damage reduction, it feels like just another rule that doesn't really add anything to the game. If your damage reduction is 2, and you get hit for 20, guess what, reducing it to 18 is mostly going to feel like the damage blew right past your damage reduction anyway. No need for additional rules to remember. They said it on the 5e team. Every rule inherently has a cost, it has to be read, remembered and applied, so it needs to add something worth the cost. Also, if that 2 damage that your damage reduction prevents is what stops you from going down, that is going to feel really close and epic. If you thought your 2 damage reduction saved your bacon, and someone then reminds you, it doesn't work on these big attacks, that is a bummer.
I think you aren’t taking into consideration a creature that does 1 base damage… they would be virtually immune to damage against 2 DR. This lets those attacks still be able to hit those targets and then not be IMMUNE 😆 Also damage in dc20 is 1/5 of D&D… so a hit of 5 damage is HUGE hit (at lower levels) So you will rarely get hit for 20… ever lol So keep those 2 things in mind and I’d say to play it out and see 😇 But I of course am always open to feedback!
@@TheDungeonCoach Maybe I misunderstood, it sounded like just having a high damage number was what you needed to ignore Damage reduction. But yes providing a way for low damage people to get through the DR is a good idea. I like how gurps does it, a lose translation to dnd would be something like, "Aim weakpoint" get disadvantage, but damage reduction protects half. Anyway, good luck with your system, you have a lot of cool ideas.
5:02 But you can make precisely to opposite argument, too. Rolling to hit as a wizard makes the class mechanically too similar to fighters rolling to hit with an axe. Besides, if the opponent is the one doing the casting, they roll to hit with the spell, and now the PC doesn't get to make a roll. Plus, is every save now going to be an attack against either mental defense or physical defense (AKA armor class)? What about reflex saves?
It's super easy to turn saving throws into defenses in 5e. You could very easily have the psion (as in the example) make an attack against a creature's Wisdom defense/AC. I don't think that differentiating characters by only two defenses is a good idea, 3-4 defenses allow more diversity between characters and what kinds of attacks they're good at defending against.
@@TheDungeonCoachAnd with all the respect in the world! 🙏 I when it suddenly hit me, I cackled 🤣. Also, I'm working on my first game, and several of your videos are in my growing reference playlist. I've been diving deep into game design and its channels like yours that are truly inspirational cocaine for my membrane. Keep doing what you're doing! :D
This sounds like a big improvement to spellcasting. With a more straightforward system for saving throws (mental defense), allows for more flexible system that can be manipulated in really fun ways
It seems like you had this goal of "you can choose any ability score combination" but then you keep making things that use either Str or Dex so it is sub-optimal to invest in both of them.
Sounds really awesome. I need to Patreon you and keep up more with what you’re building. Seems like a cross between DnD and the WitcherRPG. Both of which I love. Keep it up, Coach!
This also implies that HP is more than physical "hit points" - i think this needs to be better clarified than most RPG systems. Also gives you an opportunity to parallel physical attacks and damage with mental attacks and durations: a player can "roll" for attacks of spells that cause mental effects (illusions, blindness, stunned...) and then roll duration in the same way as a physical attack would roll for damage.
I haven't been able to keep up with all the mechanics you've released DC, but what I have seen, I've loved. I can't wait for the final product. I will 💯 be playing this at my table.
100% agree on turning everything into an attack role and removing the attacks doing saving throws: it always bugged me that, as a cleric for example, I could force an opponent to make a save as my action, and if they pass then I didn't get to roll anything on my turn. It also makes it so that saving throw spells can't crit, so the damage capability of saving throw spells and effects are lower than attack spells
The same could be said for Conditions. Yes, it kind of makes sense but every gamer pretty much understands the terms Buffs and Debuffs and Crowd Control more than the term Conditions.
Feels like you’ve just recontextualized what’s already there, adding more hoops and layers to get the same result. If you really need to attack a stat, drop 10 onto a mental stat Mod and use that. My PCs feel really good when they can just attack without rolling. They’re placing the mook into a situation, forcing them to react, and there’s power in that. Watching the mook fail the save is gratifying. To feel that same tension of the moment in reverse, when they’re forced to react and they make their save, that’s always an epic (or at least cathartic) moment. They cheer and laugh, then glare at the mook knowing the slaughter coming next round.
Armor Class just means how good your armor is, what classification it's in. It's from D&D coming out of the Chainmail medieval war game rules (I've also heard that it might have been borrowed there from a naval wargame.) It's fine and it usually gets abbreviated to AC anyway. If you were making a version of D&D and not your own game you would keep it too. Radiant and necrotic are not the same thing as holy and unholy.
a friend and i created a homebrew supplement to force grid movement that i feel like you’d like. but with the amount of homebrew on this channel you probably already do it
For me, there should be two kinds of defense: passive and active defense. Passive defense represents armor, resistance to certain types of damage, scales, and anything that protects you passively. Active defense should be propiortioal with your dexterity/agility. As for mental attacks, I think a mental save is good enough.
If you want that symmetry, should consider phys defense be bot agility and strength combined too, but have light armour get bonuses based on agility and heavy armour bonuses based on might, instead of the armour adding to the defense score.
“Armor Class” was clearly a carryover from the wargame origins of D&D. It would have applied neatly to a collective unit in a miniatures game, but it never translated well to the individual.
I dont think how much armor someone is wearing should reduce Force damage, but there could definitely be attacks that DO deal Force damage and target Physical Defense :)
@@TheDungeonCoach I agree with @ryangrandy2132. When I think force damage, it is like an invisible physical object hitting the target or creating a barrier (floating disk, Bigsby's hand, etc)
@@TheDungeonCoachDo you round down for combat mastery? Ie: a lvl 3 character has a combat mastery of 1. And at lvl 1 do you have 1 combat mastery or 0? :)
Hey there! I have really been enjoying learning your new system. It offers so much that just requires less work than 5e so we can spend more time playing and less time figuring out what to roll! How did you decide on using only Might or Agility for PD? I thought for sure it was going to mirror MD - just use both! And I suppose it doesn't make sense to me intuitively that when a very strong character (high Might) is wearing light armor, they somehow do not benefit from their strength for the ability to block a punch, shove an enemies weapon away with their own, etc. Thank you, and I look forward to playtesting!
I like the idea of this! The question I have though is what would you do if their level was an odd number? I’m fully aware I can interpret that anyway I want; either rounding up or rounding down. I’d like to know what you intended for that though. I really like the idea of this system.
You always round UP so for level 5, half of 5 is 2.5... BUT you round that up to 3 :) ALL parts of the game round up (since thats how math usually works... instead of in D&D you round down... that always bothered me)
You can actually change Saving throws to Effectively work like an attack rolls in DND(and probably Pathfinder). Jacob From XP to Level 3 mentions this if one of his videos about House rules he uses. Personally I tend to prefer Saving Throws thou, cause this stuff goes both ways. If you only have attack rolls and no saving throws, you make it to where the players do nothing when enemies take attacks against them(i.e. they don't roll anything). I understand that DC 20 has a Multi Action System that's supposed to alleviate this to an extent, but I'm still not sold on that personally. Also, why not have A Physical, Mental, and Magical defense system? That seems to make more sense if you're going to go the route of a multi Defense System from the onset?
At least AC is not like THACO. If you want an obtuse armor system look that up. To be honest AC was always really intuitive for me though I do prefer DR over just Hit or no hit.
This is shadowrun right? A teched out ogre street samurai with chromewear and minimal humanity score will be a literal tank in a gunfight but the moment a shaman hits them with a forcebolt (magic damage) they fold like a folding chair in a hurricane. Also for DND5E/PF2E i think theres a neat avenue for tactical choice/expression to be able to choose to target saves if a creature is particularly frail/clumsy/dimwitted even if their AC is high. Good vid Coach
@@TheDungeonCoach it sure does! Only different metric is that you become magically weak when you start getting cybernetics, however that comes with the benefit of becoming stronger in physical martial context
Hi Coach! If you are so focus on the definition then using magic to throw someone in to the sky so he could fall would be not to natural source of damage. Speaking to some one in specific way (like mentalist) could harm mind or soul but without using supernatural powers per se. So I would change definition of Defense by erasing word "supernatural" and "natural". As for necrotic defense I would use armor class in you touch target armor not a skin, but if it is a range attack then I would use passive inteligence or charisma or just spell save dc
You make some good points about the clarity of language and natural and unnatural. I’ll make sure to clear that up! Good points. But a lot of the magic stuff you said you’ll have to see the magic system to be able to see my design intent there. 👍🏼
i like the rework, but still there are some issues, like how does wearing plate armor prevent you from taking poison damage in a gaseous form? you will breathe better because you are wearing a heavy armor set? does not make sense
This sounds a lot like 4e, D&D which had 4 defense scores: Armor Class, Fortitude, Reflex, and Will. Rather than rolling a save, the opponent rolled against the defense score. Was that your inspiration here?
If you see the Dynamic Attack Save System, THAT was the core inspiration, which is brand new as far as I am aware. I dont want to get too crunchy with 4 different "AC"s :)
I persobally think that thubder damage shouldn't be physical for two main reasons: Mental defense seems a bit underpowered since there are way more and common damage types in the physical category Second reason is because thunder damage is supposed to be hased around sound and it doesn't really matter how much armor do you have or how fast you are so making it pyschical to represent how someone can resist only through his will to fight would make a bit more sense
To me armor should reduce damage and there should be an attribute that represents your physical ability blended with your agility. These would be based off race and class. So you make a dodge roll and if your dodge fails you take damage you take damage equal to the opponents damage value minus your armor value.
Not sure if you're after feedback, especially with the alpha just around the corner, but I think combat mastery should be different for different things on different classes, kinda like pathfinder does. Paladins should have better defense than wizards, wizards should be better spellcasters than a paladin. Having a flat umbrella bonus is one of my biggest gripes with 5e.
Off topic: I recommend changing the word thunder to sonic when referring to damage. Thunder is not an intuitive word for something that causes pain by hearing. Thunder damage is also used for high pitched nearly inaudible noises so the wording is ineffective in my opinion.
Cool. I like the idea of multiple kinds of defenses. The various kinds of saving throws in DND 5E are neat. 4E goes even further with this. Characters get four kinds of defenses. One is based off of the armor. Then there are three others. Each based off of two ability scores. The character would use whichever is higher in the pair, and that is their defense. Having defenses based on specific damage types is cool. However I think these are way too imbalanced. Why does fire, cold, and lightning count as physical. They fit mental so much better. If the game had water and plant damage types, they would count as mental as well. Pokemon was good at dividing the physical and special (mental) types evenly. So I recommend doing something like this. I am thinking about what to do with defense in my game. I definitely want damage abdorption as opposed to an armor class. This is where armor is subtracted from the damage of the attack. I even use it as a house rule for DND. I did have some kind of armor or resistence atrribute. That is used for the damage absorption. I also had an elaborate element system, like Pokemon. Being a certain element has a benefit of resisting the attacks of three kinds of elements. The defenses in 4E really intrigued me. I was even wondering if there can be individual defenses for different classes of magicians. There can be a defense that reduces melee damage, a defense that reduces spell damage, and even a defense that weakens spells that power melee attacks. I can get really wild with this. There can even be a defense that weakens healing and another that weakens tanking. I wonder if reducing defensive abilities count as defensive. It is something to ponder.
The beginning of the video really amused me. I watched a new movie in the theaters a couple of days ago. It was a biopic about Bob Marley called One Love. The beginning of this video really reminds me of that. One cool Bob Marley song is the one that goes "Get up. Stand up. Stand up for your rights." There is another meaning of the word right. In politics, a right is a freedom that people should have. It is immoral for a government or other authority to put rulings on this freedom. That is what the song is referring to. In politics, right also means conservative. Personally I am a left person. So I don't like that kind of right. In my country, the United States, I have seen the right impose unfair rulings on the rightful freedoms of the people. There are the rights of minorities and just civil rights in general. There are reproductive rights. Even something as basic as the right to vote is suppress. Sure the right preaches about the right to bear arms and the right to free speech. There are also property rights, but that is less prominent. I find that the right goes overboard with the so called "rights" and use it as an excuse to enable the harm of people. For example it is harder to protect people from deadly shootings when the arms rights gets abused by the right. Oh boy! Politics alone has two meanings for right, and they can clash. That has to be confusing for anybody who isn't familiar with political jargon. Oh well. At least left is a lot more straightforward. It can literally mean the left direction. In politics, left means liberal. However it is ambiguous on what liberal means and what counts as liberal. My pet peeve is neoliberalism and Ronald Reagan. This is the biggest example of some that is conservative but is called "liberal". Reagan supported corporate welfare, slashed regular welfare and antagonized Russia. That just screams conservative, even for the time. Reagan was even a member of the conservative party in America, and he acted just like one.
DC, I like your videos and when you came out by saying you wanted to make your own TTRPG that was going to be an almost perfect mix of DND 5e and Pathfinder 2e I was really excited. But as time goes on I feel like that's not really what's happening. I know it's probably got to be different enough to be its own thing and many other things I can't say in a short-ish comment. All. Saying is it feels like (my perception only), that you and your team are working ... I don't want to say in a vacuum, because you are getting our comments and reactions during live events. I just think there's pieces people like and pieces that are turning people off to the idea, like me. Perhaps if you do even more surveys (I hate to say it, but almost a One DnD way of getting feedback), that would help me feel like my feedback is heard and being considered along with other options. Again, this is coming from a guy who is subscribed, who likes your videos and your creativity. This isn't meant to be a put-down. I only share this because I really want you to succeed. Best wishes!
So currently, I am doing most of the feedback and service through the people who are supporting the creation of this project on Patreon. I also definitely review and have an entire note section in my master document for RUclips comments patron comments, etc.. And on live streams, I will actively make notes on the side as well With this system, being an alpha, I am and will continue to be open to feedback. So I don’t know what it is specifically that you’re referencing that is making you turned off about the system, but so far from all the feedback I have gotten from the patrons supporting its creation. It’s nothing but hype. I’d love to hear feedback though
@@TheDungeonCoach That's great info to me about how you're documenting feedback. I appreciate your response and kindness. Since you asked here's just a few thoughts. But again it's just some thoughts from a non-game designer and I'm not sure how many people share this opinion. 1) I just think that instead of it being a system that is the best parts of 5e and P2e, it's turning into more of a whole separate thing. Which honestly isn't a bad thing. I think it's great! Just a difference in expectation and maybe that was me misinterpreting the initial intention. I loved the idea of something that was basically 5e, but added the best of P2e and fixed holes such as hiding/invisibility and is the DM now playing battleship, etc. 2) well kinda "1a". I was kind of hoping that I could still potentially use 5e subclasses (perhaps with some slight modification), but I've got to think you would have had legal issues if it was too close a system. So perhaps an unrealistic idea of mine. 3) I watched one of your earlier live videos about action economy. I vaguely remember something about attacking way more. I liked it, but I had two concerns. The first was just what further play tasting would say about it's validity, balance and fun. If you want I can go back and watch the video again and gather my thoughts better. But in the end I'm not saying it's bad, just had concerns that it would actually work out. Second, since multiple attacks for everyone is kinda taking over fighters main thing, I feel like it's obvious that the fighter class would need some love. So I'm more curious what you plan to do for fighters. Other than that, every big change like 2 different types of defenses, just increases the gap further and further from 5e. It could be argued, it's "filling a hole" just like I asked for. I just don't see that in the same way I do with that example of a lack of rules with hiding I mentioned. So most is just opinion based. And now that I know you're looking at comments, I can try to do better about watching and putting in a more thoughtful response with specifics of what exactly my concern or what I think a chain of effects would be... I'll try to be concise too ;) Lastly, despite any concerns I have or difference of opinion that may exist, I'm still curious where your TTRPG goes even if it's very different from 5e. You have great ideas. I subscribed for a reason. I only have about 6 or so channels I've subscribed to. Great work and good luck.
@@bretttobiasson9584 Brett, you are awesome! Thank you for the thought out feedback! I will tell you this! All I have ever played as fifth edition, and that is my main inspiration, I think there’s some cool things to glean from Pathfinder, but as I’m developing the game, I keep seeing that there are just better solutions and through rigorous play testing those solutions hold up. That’s the best I can say, and the system really does fit together and is very cohesive. There has been times where I knew. Problem arises in the solution is very obvious because the system is so clean! So I guess I would say no that my intention is to stay true to the type of game the fifth edition is, and it will still feel familiar, but in my opinion, be a very big upgrade 👍🏼
Hmmm. Math says 8 perma items have dropped by level 10. If you have not rewarded each player with a + stat, in particular armor to a warrior, he might be pissed off. Therefore AC or defense by armor type is unbalanced. +stat items from both charisma and int make it tricky because Ac is but one stat and not two. Thus possible to make another OP.
Another way of looking at it would be, you would have to reward half of the items to armored players vs cloth wearers, therefore unbalancing game mechanics when items are introduced.
A few words of improvement. Instead of mental you should use magical defence, like a natural aura everything living or magically animated has. Otherwise low tier plants, constructs and undead would be immune, as they are mindless creatures. This defence should also include lighting, thunder, cold and maybe fire damage. Lighting and thunder because I don't think anyone could dodge an invisible sound wave or a lightning fast lightning bolt. Plus metal is conductive electricity goes through and sound is a vibration that would shake the armor. Cold and heat is nothing physical it's the drain or increase of heat energy. You could dodge the ray, but metal is conductive, that's why armor wouldn't work, like by lightning. If the fire spell produces a flame or plasma armor could work, but a ray of pure heat might go through the metal or at least turn it glowing hot. Force damage is, as far as I understand, nothing else then magical bludgeoning damage, so you could simple replace it with it. You could even give some spells slashing or piercing damage, or let the caster choose by some to give them more variety. In my personal opinion I would say you should remove charisma as a stat. Charisma is the conscious and subconscious use of your social intelligence, so it should be part of Intelligence. I suggest to make Luck the fourth stat. I mean, let's say you fight an owlbear. Can you win against it with your great strength, swift moves, or good tactics? Yes. With a nice voice, compelling arguments or a pretty face however? No, hy should the owlbear care how charismatic you are, you are just food? But winning through dumb luck? Why not? Many BBEGs were defeated be a chain of very lucky rolles, why can't your PC themself be a very lucky person?
Just to clarify, I believe magical defense is used when a hostile effect targets a unit. The effect itself (say, a frost bolt spell) would say what defense type is used to mitigate its effects. Ex a lightning effect could target either p or m defense depending on flavour. As for the removal of charisma, I'm completely with you. Its an antiquated stat from the days when players didnt rp. It doesnt make sense in dialogue, and it certainly doesnt make sense in DC20, where a character can use it to attack.
You can have the player make the save for the monster insead of the DM. Just have them read the number and say, "does 11 hit?" Like normal, but you add the monsters mod and its like +2 and you say no the monster saves but it takes half damge blah blah.
This is EVERYTHING I want in a game!! It is exactly what I’ve been feeling is missing. Cool side note, I was creating my own game system that was very similar to this, different, but strikingly similar. I since stopped working on it to focus on writing my novel, so this makes my life so much easier and so excited to play your system. I’ve of course supported your kickstarter 🎊
I love the fact that every attribute is important, and dumb stats have real penalties while also using a Prime Modifier means you can play any class any way you want. It solves both problems so nicely
Why not just keep 3 attribute scores? You are alrady dividing roleplay skills from combat skills, so you sould do away with charisma for combat and be an independent score or skill, or different system. That way also there is a cleaner mental deffense that doesn't work different from the others.
Honestly it’s something I have found that I “NEED” to do right now (algorithm / traction purposes) BUT something I do NOT want to do in the near future 👍🏼😇
I had though DC20 would be more complete. It seems to be rambling on ideas. Good Ideas for sure (mostly) but while financially successful, I rather not see another like Star Citizen that drags out years and years before the product ever comes out. Im all for innovations but thats not the vibe im getting here.
@@ViktorLoR_MainuIf there was a reasoning one could make an argument. This guy sounds confused and looks like his design tenets are "it felt cool". I am not throwing shade I am genuinely amused by the absolute stupidity of this explanation. Either the system is dumb or his introduction of it was, which is why I was hoping for the latter. Also try not to look like the classic snowflake defending people who makes money out of nothing on the internet, you don't look as good as you think.
![Chlöe - Shake (Feat. Jeremih) [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/aDs_1ufpfv8/mqdefault.jpg)
What do YOU think about these new Armor Ideas?
💜 Check out more on DC20 RPG here: www.patreon.com/thedungeoncoach
Armor does not reduce damage. But damage must be greater than AC to lose hit points. omit magic Missile. That is how I designed my D&D multiverse. Happy 4th Coach.
This is based on the first 2 minutes, and I haven't seen the rest of the video yet, so maybe I'm jumping the gun and something similar is covered. "Armor class" should be referring to the style of armor you are wearing, IE heavy, medium, light, magic, or unarmored. That would be the "class" of armor you are wearing, just like the class of your character is fighter, barbarian, or rogue.
I don't think it makes a lot of sense in truth. Different types of armor made vast differences in battle, so reducing it to only two types of armor doesn't make a great deal of sense. A damage reduction system probably would make more sense, but it's also very crunchy. And how exactly is your martial skill going to impact weather in arrow storm like at say Crecy or Agincourt or Towton? It really doesn't matter how good you are with your sword or your poleaxe--what matters is how good your armor is and how well you use your shield if you have one. In a duel with someone, martial skill might mean you're harder to hit or that you're less likely to become fatigued. But when you actually look at some of the fighting manuscripts--armored fighting is treated as a completely different beast to unarmored fighting. Is a fight between an armored combatant and an unarmored one or a lightly armored one? Say where a man-at-arms is outfitted in hardened steel full plate harness and the other has a helmet and a gambeson? No. Far from it. Games should reflect this.
Mental Defense and Physical Defense sound like EAC and KAC in Starfinder, where energy damage targets EAC and physical damage targets KAC.
The number one thing that my new players always get confused is Attack Roll vs. Saving Throw. They cast a save spell against the enemy and immediately roll a d20 because it feels a lot more intuitive to think ,,I'm the one casting the spell so I should roll the die"
YES I agree 100%
In 2nd edition they did have a mental AC, when they expanded their psychic attacks but never got very big there.
In Cyberpunk Red, ranged attacks are checks against a DV table, while melee attacks are opposed checks (your melee vs enemy's evasion)
Also, in Cyberpunk, Armor reduces incoming damage by your armor points, and if damage pierces your armor you reduce your armor points by 1.
Also, people with good reflexes can dodge bullets, changing the ranged attacks to opposed checks (your shooting skill vs enemy's evasion).
Its a fun system, until autofire makes you a red paste
@@B4dr4bbit that's part of the fun! If you're terrified of death, you're not living the Cyberpunk fantasy. In Night City, it's not how you live. It's how you die.
What is Force damage? If it damages a target through kinetic force, how is it different from Bludgeoning. I think it's a misnomer if you mean damage generated by pure magical energy, and I would suggest changing it to Eldritch damage to go with Holy and Unholy.
This is good feedback, I am going to make sure to clear up the magic vs natural language
I had the exact same thought about the name when working on my own system, I settled for "Defense" as well since shields also apply to "Armour Class", so it just makes more sense, cool video!
Rolling to hit a defense rather than have the creature do a save is a clear improvement. They did it in dnd 4e, and they should not have gone back in 5e.
Agreed. And having Fortitude, Reflex and Will also be defences was a really good system. Armour defence for physical strikes, fortitude for exertion/exhasting attacks, reflex for dodging, and will for Mental attacks. It was elegant and covered everything.
I really like the sound of this system, already using some of your ideas at my table. Looking forward to when this system comes out fully!
Love to see people already taking inspiration!! :)
This is very timely as I'm working on my own system based on 5e and have been struggling to figure out which direction I wanted to go for armor and defense. 😅
The simplest way to port this to 5e would be to have the base AC be 8.
Then have everyone add their proficiency bonus (or half) to their AC.
That's at least covers the physical portion.
I am unreasonably excited about this. Just bought the Alpha rules PDF!
Personally I'm not a fan of opposed checks at all, reducing as many things as possible into passive values feels superior for running a game. If I could I'd prefer if NPCs are just a collection of passives and players (dice addicts) do most of the actual rolling.
Numenera and its ilk have 100% player rolls, if you'd like to check it out
I'm confused, so i'm not sure if you have another system to deal with what the equivalent of saves would be, but replacing everything with a target DC via physical/mental defense kind of writes yourself into a corner. Like, an explosion or pitfall spell or effect can miss you even if you're right in the middle of it?
So, the word class has a specific definition. Which is why it isn't confusing to use it more than once. Though using the word armor does create confusion, since it includes both evasiveness and toughness, and armor does not usually get associated with evasiveness.
The simplest way to port this to 5e would be to have the base AC be 8.
Then have everyone add their proficiency bonus (or half) to their AC.
That's at least covers the physical portion.
Keeps things relatively aligned at early levels, but then opens the the throttle higher up. Without completely shooting bounded accuracy in the foot.
It also follows spell and abilty save dc's by starting at 8 instead of 10, Which was always weird to me.
If you went with half proficiency then you could add full proficiency into the armor master perks or give it to martial classes.
I turned armor class into a defense skill check. Works way faster once you get the hang of it. Took a while to get my players on board though.
MCDM's new TTRPG is also adjusting their defense options. A Warrior with plate mail should play differently than a Monk with no armor but huge Dex. Armor should reduce incoming damage and Dex should keep you from being hit at all.
And the amount of damage you can take should never change (without a corresponding change to your body).
If you prefer to have the players making all the attack rolls, it reminds me of the Cypher/Numanera system where players roll for all attack and defense in combat instead of the GM rolling anything for monsters.
You should make a joke class called the Armor Class and they use their armor to beat people up. D&D kinda has something like that, the Battle Rager, but I feel the mechanic is odd, but it might work with your Grapple Maneuvers
My tastes are probably more crunchy than most, but I have always thought that having certainly weapons work better on certain types of armor should be reflected.
Gygax tried this two or three different ways in Chainmail and AD&D, and they were all more trouble than they were worth. A big part of the reason is that most combat is a PC in armor with a melee weapon vs a monster with a thick hide with natural weapons.
Regarding 4:50 - Well for PF2e you could roll your spell attack vs enemies Will DC.
Simple fix for every table in 3 sentences. Armor does not reduce damage. But damage must be greater than AC to lose hit points. omit magic Missile. BOOM! make your combats amazing regardless of system.
Except that makes it so goblins can’t hurt an adventurer at level 1? Don’t they do like 1d6 damage? AC starts at 8…
@@Paradox-es3bl perhaps he meant the armor bonus that it gives over the baseline of 10? like the opposite of how corrosive damage affects armor and weapons. so chain mail would be have a Damage Threshold of 6. Might have to change how dexterity based armors are affected by this since it still favors it over heavier armors.
@@Paradox-es3blthis is probably assuming ac numbers have been re worked to be 1-10 ish I’m assuming. But I’m not sure I like that nooks become useless late game but it tends to be how video games work so idk
I'm sorry but armor doesn't just block everything or nothing.
Sortof funny, seeing this. 4th edition D&D came to very similar conclusions as far as always wanting attacks to be rolled vs. a static defense number, even if it was something more nebulous like a mental defense. Not a bad route to go down. They didn't simplify things down to 2 defenses, though, and went for 4 (Armor, Reflex, Fortitude, and Will), which will have some advantages and some disadvantages over what you're doing, I suppose.
I've been working on a TTRPG system for a more super-hero themed worldbuilding, and ran into the same concerns. I don't like the idea of armor class as a concept, so I used Avoidance, which is the higher of your block and dodge values. That's what damaging attacks target. Control effects target defenses specifically for conditions, and you can get boosts to individual condition defenses from your power selections.
Flavor wise, i like the idea that a great wyrms breath weapon might do physical and mental damage. Or the great old ones just melt your brain.
💜💜💜
sounds cool.
One thing I will say, I don't see any reason why Big hits wouldn't apply your damage reduction, it feels like just another rule that doesn't really add anything to the game. If your damage reduction is 2, and you get hit for 20, guess what, reducing it to 18 is mostly going to feel like the damage blew right past your damage reduction anyway. No need for additional rules to remember.
They said it on the 5e team. Every rule inherently has a cost, it has to be read, remembered and applied, so it needs to add something worth the cost.
Also, if that 2 damage that your damage reduction prevents is what stops you from going down, that is going to feel really close and epic. If you thought your 2 damage reduction saved your bacon, and someone then reminds you, it doesn't work on these big attacks, that is a bummer.
I think you aren’t taking into consideration a creature that does 1 base damage… they would be virtually immune to damage against 2 DR. This lets those attacks still be able to hit those targets and then not be IMMUNE 😆
Also damage in dc20 is 1/5 of D&D… so a hit of 5 damage is HUGE hit (at lower levels)
So you will rarely get hit for 20… ever lol
So keep those 2 things in mind and I’d say to play it out and see 😇
But I of course am always open to feedback!
@@TheDungeonCoach Maybe I misunderstood, it sounded like just having a high damage number was what you needed to ignore Damage reduction.
But yes providing a way for low damage people to get through the DR is a good idea.
I like how gurps does it, a lose translation to dnd would be something like, "Aim weakpoint" get disadvantage, but damage reduction protects half.
Anyway, good luck with your system, you have a lot of cool ideas.
5:02 But you can make precisely to opposite argument, too. Rolling to hit as a wizard makes the class mechanically too similar to fighters rolling to hit with an axe. Besides, if the opponent is the one doing the casting, they roll to hit with the spell, and now the PC doesn't get to make a roll. Plus, is every save now going to be an attack against either mental defense or physical defense (AKA armor class)? What about reflex saves?
It's super easy to turn saving throws into defenses in 5e.
You could very easily have the psion (as in the example) make an attack against a creature's Wisdom defense/AC.
I don't think that differentiating characters by only two defenses is a good idea, 3-4 defenses allow more diversity between characters and what kinds of attacks they're good at defending against.
9:21 - 9:40 Dude TELL ME he doesn't remind you of Nick from New Girl when he moves his hands around. 😂
In a very strange introspective way... I SEE IT! lol
@@TheDungeonCoachAnd with all the respect in the world! 🙏 I when it suddenly hit me, I cackled 🤣. Also, I'm working on my first game, and several of your videos are in my growing reference playlist. I've been diving deep into game design and its channels like yours that are truly inspirational cocaine for my membrane. Keep doing what you're doing! :D
This sounds like a big improvement to spellcasting. With a more straightforward system for saving throws (mental defense), allows for more flexible system that can be manipulated in really fun ways
It seems like you had this goal of "you can choose any ability score combination" but then you keep making things that use either Str or Dex so it is sub-optimal to invest in both of them.
Sounds really awesome. I need to Patreon you and keep up more with what you’re building. Seems like a cross between DnD and the WitcherRPG. Both of which I love. Keep it up, Coach!
OMG I am honored by that comparison! Thanks for that and thank you for the support, in just watching these videos or Patreon. I appreciate ya!
Force is glorified bludgeoning damage.
This also implies that HP is more than physical "hit points" - i think this needs to be better clarified than most RPG systems.
Also gives you an opportunity to parallel physical attacks and damage with mental attacks and durations: a player can "roll" for attacks of spells that cause mental effects (illusions, blindness, stunned...) and then roll duration in the same way as a physical attack would roll for damage.
I haven't been able to keep up with all the mechanics you've released DC, but what I have seen, I've loved. I can't wait for the final product. I will 💯 be playing this at my table.
100% agree on turning everything into an attack role and removing the attacks doing saving throws: it always bugged me that, as a cleric for example, I could force an opponent to make a save as my action, and if they pass then I didn't get to roll anything on my turn. It also makes it so that saving throw spells can't crit, so the damage capability of saving throw spells and effects are lower than attack spells
The same could be said for Conditions. Yes, it kind of makes sense but every gamer pretty much understands the terms Buffs and Debuffs and Crowd Control more than the term Conditions.
The first time I saw this concept was in 13th Age, it was a revelation and so simple.
This just makes so much more sense to me than the 5e system! Love it!
Feels like you’ve just recontextualized what’s already there, adding more hoops and layers to get the same result. If you really need to attack a stat, drop 10 onto a mental stat Mod and use that.
My PCs feel really good when they can just attack without rolling. They’re placing the mook into a situation, forcing them to react, and there’s power in that. Watching the mook fail the save is gratifying. To feel that same tension of the moment in reverse, when they’re forced to react and they make their save, that’s always an epic (or at least cathartic) moment. They cheer and laugh, then glare at the mook knowing the slaughter coming next round.
Armor Class just means how good your armor is, what classification it's in. It's from D&D coming out of the Chainmail medieval war game rules (I've also heard that it might have been borrowed there from a naval wargame.) It's fine and it usually gets abbreviated to AC anyway. If you were making a version of D&D and not your own game you would keep it too.
Radiant and necrotic are not the same thing as holy and unholy.
a friend and i created a homebrew supplement to force grid movement that i feel like you’d like. but with the amount of homebrew on this channel you probably already do it
you could say for physical necrotic damage, that it is like tendrils that try to drill through your armor to infect your body with stuff you know
For me, there should be two kinds of defense: passive and active defense. Passive defense represents armor, resistance to certain types of damage, scales, and anything that protects you passively. Active defense should be propiortioal with your dexterity/agility.
As for mental attacks, I think a mental save is good enough.
Hi there, I used the same system on RPG that I'm writing, wow we had very similar ideas
If you want that symmetry, should consider phys defense be bot agility and strength combined too, but have light armour get bonuses based on agility and heavy armour bonuses based on might, instead of the armour adding to the defense score.
“Armor Class” was clearly a carryover from the wargame origins of D&D. It would have applied neatly to a collective unit in a miniatures game, but it never translated well to the individual.
Wouldn't "force" damage fit better under physical damage?
I dont think how much armor someone is wearing should reduce Force damage, but there could definitely be attacks that DO deal Force damage and target Physical Defense :)
@@TheDungeonCoach I agree with @ryangrandy2132. When I think force damage, it is like an invisible physical object hitting the target or creating a barrier (floating disk, Bigsby's hand, etc)
@@TheDungeonCoachDo you round down for combat mastery? Ie: a lvl 3 character has a combat mastery of 1. And at lvl 1 do you have 1 combat mastery or 0? :)
Hey there! I have really been enjoying learning your new system. It offers so much that just requires less work than 5e so we can spend more time playing and less time figuring out what to roll!
How did you decide on using only Might or Agility for PD? I thought for sure it was going to mirror MD - just use both!
And I suppose it doesn't make sense to me intuitively that when a very strong character (high Might) is wearing light armor, they somehow do not benefit from their strength for the ability to block a punch, shove an enemies weapon away with their own, etc.
Thank you, and I look forward to playtesting!
I like the idea of this! The question I have though is what would you do if their level was an odd number? I’m fully aware I can interpret that anyway I want; either rounding up or rounding down. I’d like to know what you intended for that though. I really like the idea of this system.
You always round UP
so for level 5, half of 5 is 2.5... BUT you round that up to 3 :)
ALL parts of the game round up (since thats how math usually works... instead of in D&D you round down... that always bothered me)
You can actually change Saving throws to Effectively work like an attack rolls in DND(and probably Pathfinder).
Jacob From XP to Level 3 mentions this if one of his videos about House rules he uses.
Personally I tend to prefer Saving Throws thou, cause this stuff goes both ways.
If you only have attack rolls and no saving throws, you make it to where the players do nothing when enemies take attacks against them(i.e. they don't roll anything). I understand that DC 20 has a Multi Action System that's supposed to alleviate this to an extent, but I'm still not sold on that personally.
Also, why not have A Physical, Mental, and Magical defense system? That seems to make more sense if you're going to go the route of a multi Defense System from the onset?
Sounds like a better version of what original Iron Kingdoms has and I thought it had the best defense system...until now.
At least AC is not like THACO. If you want an obtuse armor system look that up. To be honest AC was always really intuitive for me though I do prefer DR over just Hit or no hit.
This is shadowrun right?
A teched out ogre street samurai with chromewear and minimal humanity score will be a literal tank in a gunfight but the moment a shaman hits them with a forcebolt (magic damage) they fold like a folding chair in a hurricane.
Also for DND5E/PF2E i think theres a neat avenue for tactical choice/expression to be able to choose to target saves if a creature is particularly frail/clumsy/dimwitted even if their AC is high.
Good vid Coach
Is this what Shadow run does??? And thanks Tongol!
@@TheDungeonCoach it sure does! Only different metric is that you become magically weak when you start getting cybernetics, however that comes with the benefit of becoming stronger in physical martial context
Maybe consider changing Magic Defense to Defiance. Defense and Defiance.
Yay. Leaning back into 4e game design.
Hi Coach! If you are so focus on the definition then using magic to throw someone in to the sky so he could fall would be not to natural source of damage. Speaking to some one in specific way (like mentalist) could harm mind or soul but without using supernatural powers per se.
So I would change definition of Defense by erasing word "supernatural" and "natural".
As for necrotic defense I would use armor class in you touch target armor not a skin, but if it is a range attack then I would use passive inteligence or charisma or just spell save dc
You make some good points about the clarity of language and natural and unnatural. I’ll make sure to clear that up! Good points. But a lot of the magic stuff you said you’ll have to see the magic system to be able to see my design intent there. 👍🏼
@@TheDungeonCoach I refer to a Pathfinder / DnD systems. I would be glad to see your magic system as soon as it would be possible
i like the rework, but still there are some issues, like how does wearing plate armor prevent you from taking poison damage in a gaseous form? you will breathe better because you are wearing a heavy armor set? does not make sense
This sounds a lot like 4e, D&D which had 4 defense scores: Armor Class, Fortitude, Reflex, and Will. Rather than rolling a save, the opponent rolled against the defense score. Was that your inspiration here?
If you see the Dynamic Attack Save System, THAT was the core inspiration, which is brand new as far as I am aware. I dont want to get too crunchy with 4 different "AC"s :)
I persobally think that thubder damage shouldn't be physical for two main reasons:
Mental defense seems a bit underpowered since there are way more and common damage types in the physical category
Second reason is because thunder damage is supposed to be hased around sound and it doesn't really matter how much armor do you have or how fast you are so making it pyschical to represent how someone can resist only through his will to fight would make a bit more sense
Can't wait to test this out!
To me armor should reduce damage and there should be an attribute that represents your physical ability blended with your agility. These would be based off race and class. So you make a dodge roll and if your dodge fails you take damage you take damage equal to the opponents damage value minus your armor value.
Not sure if you're after feedback, especially with the alpha just around the corner, but I think combat mastery should be different for different things on different classes, kinda like pathfinder does. Paladins should have better defense than wizards, wizards should be better spellcasters than a paladin. Having a flat umbrella bonus is one of my biggest gripes with 5e.
How come force damage is mental ? Whats the thinking behind it ?
Off topic: I recommend changing the word thunder to sonic when referring to damage. Thunder is not an intuitive word for something that causes pain by hearing. Thunder damage is also used for high pitched nearly inaudible noises so the wording is ineffective in my opinion.
Cool. I like the idea of multiple kinds of defenses. The various kinds of saving throws in DND 5E are neat. 4E goes even further with this. Characters get four kinds of defenses. One is based off of the armor. Then there are three others. Each based off of two ability scores. The character would use whichever is higher in the pair, and that is their defense. Having defenses based on specific damage types is cool. However I think these are way too imbalanced. Why does fire, cold, and lightning count as physical. They fit mental so much better. If the game had water and plant damage types, they would count as mental as well. Pokemon was good at dividing the physical and special (mental) types evenly. So I recommend doing something like this.
I am thinking about what to do with defense in my game. I definitely want damage abdorption as opposed to an armor class. This is where armor is subtracted from the damage of the attack. I even use it as a house rule for DND. I did have some kind of armor or resistence atrribute. That is used for the damage absorption. I also had an elaborate element system, like Pokemon. Being a certain element has a benefit of resisting the attacks of three kinds of elements. The defenses in 4E really intrigued me. I was even wondering if there can be individual defenses for different classes of magicians. There can be a defense that reduces melee damage, a defense that reduces spell damage, and even a defense that weakens spells that power melee attacks. I can get really wild with this. There can even be a defense that weakens healing and another that weakens tanking. I wonder if reducing defensive abilities count as defensive. It is something to ponder.
The beginning of the video really amused me. I watched a new movie in the theaters a couple of days ago. It was a biopic about Bob Marley called One Love. The beginning of this video really reminds me of that. One cool Bob Marley song is the one that goes "Get up. Stand up. Stand up for your rights." There is another meaning of the word right. In politics, a right is a freedom that people should have. It is immoral for a government or other authority to put rulings on this freedom. That is what the song is referring to. In politics, right also means conservative. Personally I am a left person. So I don't like that kind of right. In my country, the United States, I have seen the right impose unfair rulings on the rightful freedoms of the people. There are the rights of minorities and just civil rights in general. There are reproductive rights. Even something as basic as the right to vote is suppress. Sure the right preaches about the right to bear arms and the right to free speech. There are also property rights, but that is less prominent. I find that the right goes overboard with the so called "rights" and use it as an excuse to enable the harm of people. For example it is harder to protect people from deadly shootings when the arms rights gets abused by the right. Oh boy! Politics alone has two meanings for right, and they can clash. That has to be confusing for anybody who isn't familiar with political jargon. Oh well. At least left is a lot more straightforward. It can literally mean the left direction. In politics, left means liberal. However it is ambiguous on what liberal means and what counts as liberal. My pet peeve is neoliberalism and Ronald Reagan. This is the biggest example of some that is conservative but is called "liberal". Reagan supported corporate welfare, slashed regular welfare and antagonized Russia. That just screams conservative, even for the time. Reagan was even a member of the conservative party in America, and he acted just like one.
How does AoE spells like fireball work in a no saving throw system?
Spell-attack probably. There are other systems wich work that way
Make players do all rolls, both attack and defense. Like in Numenera. More empowering for players, less math for the GM
DC, I like your videos and when you came out by saying you wanted to make your own TTRPG that was going to be an almost perfect mix of DND 5e and Pathfinder 2e I was really excited. But as time goes on I feel like that's not really what's happening.
I know it's probably got to be different enough to be its own thing and many other things I can't say in a short-ish comment. All. Saying is it feels like (my perception only), that you and your team are working ... I don't want to say in a vacuum, because you are getting our comments and reactions during live events. I just think there's pieces people like and pieces that are turning people off to the idea, like me.
Perhaps if you do even more surveys (I hate to say it, but almost a One DnD way of getting feedback), that would help me feel like my feedback is heard and being considered along with other options.
Again, this is coming from a guy who is subscribed, who likes your videos and your creativity. This isn't meant to be a put-down. I only share this because I really want you to succeed.
Best wishes!
So currently, I am doing most of the feedback and service through the people who are supporting the creation of this project on Patreon. I also definitely review and have an entire note section in my master document for RUclips comments patron comments, etc..
And on live streams, I will actively make notes on the side as well
With this system, being an alpha, I am and will continue to be open to feedback.
So I don’t know what it is specifically that you’re referencing that is making you turned off about the system, but so far from all the feedback I have gotten from the patrons supporting its creation. It’s nothing but hype.
I’d love to hear feedback though
@@TheDungeonCoach That's great info to me about how you're documenting feedback. I appreciate your response and kindness.
Since you asked here's just a few thoughts. But again it's just some thoughts from a non-game designer and I'm not sure how many people share this opinion.
1) I just think that instead of it being a system that is the best parts of 5e and P2e, it's turning into more of a whole separate thing. Which honestly isn't a bad thing. I think it's great! Just a difference in expectation and maybe that was me misinterpreting the initial intention. I loved the idea of something that was basically 5e, but added the best of P2e and fixed holes such as hiding/invisibility and is the DM now playing battleship, etc.
2) well kinda "1a". I was kind of hoping that I could still potentially use 5e subclasses (perhaps with some slight modification), but I've got to think you would have had legal issues if it was too close a system. So perhaps an unrealistic idea of mine.
3) I watched one of your earlier live videos about action economy. I vaguely remember something about attacking way more. I liked it, but I had two concerns. The first was just what further play tasting would say about it's validity, balance and fun. If you want I can go back and watch the video again and gather my thoughts better. But in the end I'm not saying it's bad, just had concerns that it would actually work out. Second, since multiple attacks for everyone is kinda taking over fighters main thing, I feel like it's obvious that the fighter class would need some love. So I'm more curious what you plan to do for fighters.
Other than that, every big change like 2 different types of defenses, just increases the gap further and further from 5e. It could be argued, it's "filling a hole" just like I asked for. I just don't see that in the same way I do with that example of a lack of rules with hiding I mentioned.
So most is just opinion based. And now that I know you're looking at comments, I can try to do better about watching and putting in a more thoughtful response with specifics of what exactly my concern or what I think a chain of effects would be... I'll try to be concise too ;)
Lastly, despite any concerns I have or difference of opinion that may exist, I'm still curious where your TTRPG goes even if it's very different from 5e. You have great ideas. I subscribed for a reason. I only have about 6 or so channels I've subscribed to. Great work and good luck.
@@bretttobiasson9584 Brett, you are awesome! Thank you for the thought out feedback!
I will tell you this! All I have ever played as fifth edition, and that is my main inspiration, I think there’s some cool things to glean from Pathfinder, but as I’m developing the game, I keep seeing that there are just better solutions and through rigorous play testing those solutions hold up. That’s the best I can say, and the system really does fit together and is very cohesive.
There has been times where I knew. Problem arises in the solution is very obvious because the system is so clean!
So I guess I would say no that my intention is to stay true to the type of game the fifth edition is, and it will still feel familiar, but in my opinion, be a very big upgrade 👍🏼
Hmmm. Math says 8 perma items have dropped by level 10. If you have not rewarded each player with a + stat, in particular armor to a warrior, he might be pissed off. Therefore AC or defense by armor type is unbalanced. +stat items from both charisma and int make it tricky because Ac is but one stat and not two. Thus possible to make another OP.
Another way of looking at it would be, you would have to reward half of the items to armored players vs cloth wearers, therefore unbalancing game mechanics when items are introduced.
A few words of improvement.
Instead of mental you should use magical defence, like a natural aura everything living or magically animated has. Otherwise low tier plants, constructs and undead would be immune, as they are mindless creatures. This defence should also include lighting, thunder, cold and maybe fire damage.
Lighting and thunder because I don't think anyone could dodge an invisible sound wave or a lightning fast lightning bolt. Plus metal is conductive electricity goes through and sound is a vibration that would shake the armor.
Cold and heat is nothing physical it's the drain or increase of heat energy. You could dodge the ray, but metal is conductive, that's why armor wouldn't work, like by lightning. If the fire spell produces a flame or plasma armor could work, but a ray of pure heat might go through the metal or at least turn it glowing hot.
Force damage is, as far as I understand, nothing else then magical bludgeoning damage, so you could simple replace it with it. You could even give some spells slashing or piercing damage, or let the caster choose by some to give them more variety.
In my personal opinion I would say you should remove charisma as a stat. Charisma is the conscious and subconscious use of your social intelligence, so it should be part of Intelligence. I suggest to make Luck the fourth stat.
I mean, let's say you fight an owlbear. Can you win against it with your great strength, swift moves, or good tactics? Yes. With a nice voice, compelling arguments or a pretty face however? No, hy should the owlbear care how charismatic you are, you are just food? But winning through dumb luck? Why not? Many BBEGs were defeated be a chain of very lucky rolles, why can't your PC themself be a very lucky person?
Just to clarify, I believe magical defense is used when a hostile effect targets a unit. The effect itself (say, a frost bolt spell) would say what defense type is used to mitigate its effects. Ex a lightning effect could target either p or m defense depending on flavour.
As for the removal of charisma, I'm completely with you. Its an antiquated stat from the days when players didnt rp. It doesnt make sense in dialogue, and it certainly doesnt make sense in DC20, where a character can use it to attack.
You can have the player make the save for the monster insead of the DM. Just have them read the number and say, "does 11 hit?" Like normal, but you add the monsters mod and its like +2 and you say no the monster saves but it takes half damge blah blah.
So I may have missed this, but what does armor itself actually do, if not add to your physical defense?
Armor gives you a bonus to physical defense depending on the type and quality 👍🏼
@@TheDungeonCoach gotcha, and that’s in addition to either Might or Agility (for heavy and light armor respectively), correct?
@@LeMayJoseph correct! But if you aren’t wearing any armor, you still at your agility
@@TheDungeonCoach yeah that checks out. There’s no armor lighter than well, no armor.
Hmmmm.... Paladins are going to be super tank-y in this system
This is EVERYTHING I want in a game!! It is exactly what I’ve been feeling is missing. Cool side note, I was creating my own game system that was very similar to this, different, but strikingly similar.
I since stopped working on it to focus on writing my novel, so this makes my life so much easier and so excited to play your system.
I’ve of course supported your kickstarter 🎊
I love the fact that every attribute is important, and dumb stats have real penalties while also using a Prime Modifier means you can play any class any way you want.
It solves both problems so nicely
What about psychic blades? Like from psi rogues?
The damage type doesnt decide what armor type is used to defend angainst the attack 👍
Kinda over-thinking the term ain'tcha coach?
We are back to 3rd gen Pokemon. 😂
Why not just keep 3 attribute scores? You are alrady dividing roleplay skills from combat skills, so you sould do away with charisma for combat and be an independent score or skill, or different system. That way also there is a cleaner mental deffense that doesn't work different from the others.
I'd be able to take this system much more seriously if you'd stop putting DnD in your video title like that. Let it speak for itself.
Honestly it’s something I have found that I “NEED” to do right now (algorithm / traction purposes) BUT something I do NOT want to do in the near future 👍🏼😇
Absolutely no reason to over complicate it like this.
I had though DC20 would be more complete. It seems to be rambling on ideas. Good Ideas for sure (mostly) but while financially successful, I rather not see another like Star Citizen that drags out years and years before the product ever comes out. Im all for innovations but thats not the vibe im getting here.
I sincerely hope you're dumbing it down as much as possible because it really sounds dumb.
Wheres the argument? Sorry, if you just wanna throw shade ill leave you be
@@ViktorLoR_MainuIf there was a reasoning one could make an argument. This guy sounds confused and looks like his design tenets are "it felt cool". I am not throwing shade I am genuinely amused by the absolute stupidity of this explanation. Either the system is dumb or his introduction of it was, which is why I was hoping for the latter.
Also try not to look like the classic snowflake defending people who makes money out of nothing on the internet, you don't look as good as you think.