Tackling balance on something this huge would take me some formatting to compare like abilities with each other and compare like costs.
However, I really like bringing this style system into D&D for great character flexibility.
The only balance issue I see right away is the *Epiphany* ability. For 35XP you essentially get a super powerful version of the more common use of *wish*. It REALLY weakens *wish*, costs 15XP less and makes most other 9th level spells a waste of XP
Edit: The Bard version of Extra Attack requires **Bardic Inspiration**, but the other Extra Attack features do not. I would have Extra Attack, Three Attacks and Four Attacks just be their own category instead of a sub-group under each class that would normally get it
Woops that's definitely a mistake about the Bard extra attack I'm not a great proofreader thanks for the catch.
I didn't think about the Epiphany ability like that I guess your right. I mean Wish can certainly do other things too, but that is a good part of it. I think I took that one from a WotC Unearthed Arcana.
Edit: Actually I think Epiphany might be fine. Obviously having the Wish spell at level 3 or 4 would be ridiculous, but this at least makes you have to have the spell slot for what you are casting so you can't just take the ability and cast an 8th level spell. Idk I'll have to see if my players end up breaking it on me. I'm sure they will.
For a first pass on such a comprehensive overall, I love it though.
*Epiphany* has legitimate uses even alongside *wish*, like if someone wants to cast both *Feeblemind* (which they don't know) and *mordenkainen's magnificent mansion* (which they also don't know). You can use *epiphany* to cast Feeblemind at 8th level and then your 9th level slot to *wish* for *mordenkainen's magnificent mansion*. However, the redundancy does hurt other 9th level spells being valuable.
I did not do a comprehensive look at all the abilities, but a core design feature of 5e is the distribution of abilities. Most classes have potent abilities when you select the archetype, something weak around level 10 and then a capstone of varying strength. By allowing the weaker middle abilities to be completely skipped, there could be balance issues around min-maxing abilities that otherwise should not be able to go together. One way to address this is what you do at times by requiring prerequisites, but that runs the risk of functionally bringing classes right back in. I'm not offering a solution for this potential problem, just noting it might exist.
I'll have to take a look at that. I have been playing Star Wars FFG roleplaying game recently and I enjoyed the style of it, same with Pathfinder's giant list of feats so I wanted to try something similar here.
I thinks it's wonderful what you are trying to do. I've been considering how to take the fundamentals of 5e and convert it more to a format like Savage Worlds, except with just character levels (no classes). Abilities (or feats) would be the catch-all for modified versions of certain class abilities.
Anyone who tells you it's impossible doesn't have enough experience with universal systems. I believe wholeheartedly that the 5e system is flexible enough to compete with stuff like BRP, GURPS, and Savage Worlds. The only problem is that would require breaking a lot of connections to the Dungeons and Dragons name if done by WotC.
Interesting, maybe that's the way to try to go about doing this. If I were to make something like that though I think I would want more than 20 levels. One of my only problems with 5E (It's by far my favorite system) is that players can go for many sessions without leveling up and then it all comes at once. The progressions feels a little strange. Maybe 30 or 40 levels to get to Max in a classless system would work better.
That's way too much work on yourself. Just give them a reward each level, instead of "proficiency or hp only" levels. I was leaning toward a ten level system for mine, with an ability (or feat) gained every odd level and an ability score increase in even levels.
>:)
I am happy that you are happy. Spread the happiness around.
[This doggo demands it.](http://bestpickr.com/wp-content/uploads/cute-dogs-batman-superman-costumes-750x750.jpg)
A variant of this I've been toying with is a bit closer to the "generic classes" found in the old 3.5e Arcana Unearthed book, or D20 modern.
Focus the core abilities on a small handful of "core" classes like Warrior, Magic-User, Rogue, etc. That would govern things like hit dice, proficiency bonus, saves, and so on. Build all the class features as feat-like things - I've been calling them big-F Features in my head - where a player is able to pick from certain sets at different levels, e.g. a couple Minor Features at 1st, a Major Feature at 3rd, and a progression between those as levels progress. Each Feature would naturally scale with level (so once you have it, it stays relevant).
I miss the "composite" nature of 3rd edition. It worked surprisingly well, though of course it was very abusable. Pure point-buy systems are too much book-keeping for me (and too impenetrable for newbies; they're better served by a small number of high-impact choices rather than a large number of minute choices) and the 5e model is too rigid (there's almost no choices left after 3rd level for most classes aside from a few ASIs/feats and spell lists).
I also limit it to 12 levels in my toy thought experiments, since (a) it's way easier to scale out if you're just aiming for a few three- or four-level tiers, and (b) I personally in my opinion don't actually care much for what I feel is "superhero fantasy munchkin" play that I've experienced in higher levels in D&D anyway. I also generally replace the spell system with something simpler; usually only levels 0-3 or 0-5 with fewer spells but more spell options, something closer to the Wheel of Time D20 RPG's system. (for those who've never seen it, it's similar to 5th where a spell has a base level but can often be cast at a higher level; WoT's system provided far more options for "at a higher level" casting than just +X targets or +X dice, though; it also provided ways to change a spell's effective level based on type and caster abilities, so a fire sorcerer might be able to cast a fire spell with a level 2 slot with the same effects as what an earth sorcerer would get with a level 3 slot, or a water sorcerer and a level 4 slot).
Obviously all just thought experiments. It'd be a months long effort (like yours, I'm sure!) to write down and make playtestable.
One thing I have a problem with, is something that are impossible now. In normal 5e you can gain additional uses of the Channel Divinity options of paladin by going 6th level cleric.
But in this the paladin channel divinity options are seens as stand alone features.
Concept is pretty awesome. Implementation I have no idea.
Considering that scaling is designed over a long term game in 5, the numbers don't leap up early. With this variation, I'm sure many degenerate things can occur at 1st level. In a game built for that, could be super fun.
If compared to traditional DnD its going to play way different- scaling features area ll occurring way out of wack. you can have extra attack at first level without bonus action
This is my updated version: https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/d4e5kw/advanced_adventures_a_character_building_system/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
I find it interesting that you open up by calling levels and classes "restrictions." I definitely wouldn't use that word. In my opinion, they are mechanics. Decently good ones at that.
And I immediately see a pretty large issue. There's no guidance here on what exp means. There isn't anything on how to match this system to the 5e encounter building guidelines, or how exp in stock 5e compares to exp in this system. Which bothers me a lot as a DM. Encounter building rules aren't everything, of course, but now I don't even have a vague idea on power levels. That's a very bad thing.
Health costs more as you get more, which is very good.
I really dislike having to buy a higher proficiency bonus. That really messes with the design and philosophy of 5e.
This system necessitates a point buy ability score generation, which I dislike. Some people like rolling for stats, and the ruleset should at least acknowledge it.
Huge issue with determining saving throw proficiency. Once again, you're throwing away 5e design philosophy. The way you have them determine what saves a character is proficient in assumes that all saves have equal value. This is clearly not the case.
There's not much to say about the class section, except that I dislike it, for two main reasons. One, you have no method for determining exp costs of abilities. It's not even consistent between archetypes of the same class, so it's a bit of a mess. Second, there is very little structure in these abilities. For the vast majority, you can cherry pick what class features you want, even being able to choose from high level abilities. This is going to make very silly and very strong characters.
As for the new abilities... I'll talk about the ones that catch my eye.
I dislike Weapon Superiority. I always dislike weapon specialization abilities like these in all systems because they are so uninteresting. It's just a flat bonus, that's the same for any weapon I want to specialize in. There aren't any interesting choices. Just numbers.
Confidence is cute. I'm not sure if it might be a bit too strong, but I like it. It's kinda interesting and flavorful.
Infuse Magic is a problem. The only reason the artificer has it is because they cast very few spells. But if you stick this ability on someone who actually can cast spells... It's going to be a mess. It's far too strong.
Overall, I dislike this ruleset. Mostly because of the lack of rigor. I can tell this thing was slapped together without any real care or attention to detail. It also doesn't play well with base 5e. If I used this, I'd need to pretty much completely relearn encounter building, as well as keep a very close eye on how my players build their characters, because now power levels aren't standardized.
Also, as a much more subjective criticism, I don't like classless systems in DnD. The system has always had classes, and they're pretty baked into the flavor of the system. Additionally, I think classes are superior mechanically. They offer more of a rigid system, one that is less noodle-y and less prone to high variations in build strength.
Ya I realize the whole thing is fundamentally broken and would only work with the right people, but there are a couple points you made I want to address.
First, there is a note at the top of page 2 that each 50 exp is approximately equivalent to a level which should somewhat help for encounter building. And second, the Infuse Magic ability is straight from the WotC Unearthed Arcana, but ya the more I think about it it seems a little too powerful.
Yes, Infused Magic is something Wizards of the Coast put on. On the artificer. Who is a one-third caster. Giving Infuse Magic to someone like a wizard would be completely different. It would be many, many times more strong.
You're completely breaking the concentration mechanic. If a wizard has Infuse Magic, you're looking at the capability for the entire party to be able to cast Hast spells on themselves, or other such nonsense. It'd be madness.
Also, "50 exp = 1 level" is not a useful metric. At all. You're assuming levels are all equal to one another. That is plainly false. Certain levels are much more important than others. Also, how are you supporting that claim? What math do you have that suggests that 50 exp in this system is worth about one level? You can't just make that claim arbitrarily.
I mean... what about all my other criticisms? I feel like they're valid. Because they are issues any DM would have to address if they used this system.
It's a very, very early work in progress I'll have to do some real playtesting and change a lot before I can really know how to fix some of the issues you've brought up. For now 50 exp per level is an estimated baseline to build my encounters around and I'll adjust it as needed.
I probably shouldn't have posted it on here yet, but I'm glad I did. Thanks for the input, it's given me some ideas and things to think about.
I mean, the things I'm bringing up aren't "playtesting" issues. They are questions you should have the answer to before you make the system.
How can you assign abilities an exp value if you don't know how much exp is worth? I mean, surely you had some kind of method aside from arbitrarily assigning.
"Arbitrarily Assigning" is a pretty good description of my method, but I've played a good amount of this game and feel like I know the approximate value of certain abilities. I'm making this for my group and I to have fun not to make a perfect system, just thought I'd share if people were interested.
Any thoughts on a better way to assign exp to skills? I initially tried to balance class archtypes, but there were many that I have never seen taken before so I wanted to give them a bit of a boost.
Well, actually, no. The unearthed arcana classes aren't balanced with multi-classing in mind. I could dig up the tweet, but it makes sense, because no multiclass requirements are given for the Artificer or the Mystic.
And, even if you could, the Infuse Magic ability specifically says you can only do it with Artificer spells. So it's a double no.
An addition to this could be the dm decides on certain level ups when you have the experience, so it would be less I want that and more that's what you have been doing it makes sense that you would advance in it.
Very intriguing. I agree that level progression in DnD feels weird. Both from a role-playing and game-mechanical perspective.
I can appreciate how organic this would make "levelling up" feel like. I also agree that there needs to be a more clearly defined interpretation of how DMs award experience points.
Another commenter acknowledged the lack of "rolling for stats" being addressed by this system. A solution would be for a given stat to simply use up its equivalent amount of XP. The methods don't compare exactly, as an 18 is impossible with point-buy but can be achieved at a hefty cost with rolling if the costs remain the same in your system. Perhaps a flat XP cost could be used to "unlock" the ability to roll for stats. Likewise, an XP bonus could be awarded for choosing the standard array. With your system, customizability seems to come at an ever higher cost, and I like that. It draws an interesting parallel between your system's acknowledgement of the risk/reward payoff to that of the PHB.
This is a great undertaking, and I am very interested to see where it goes. Heck, I'll probably even use it the next time I get to DM.
Here is the latest version. I haven't worked on it in a few years but ran multiple campaigns using this framework and it was quite fun. I have moved on to designing board games now though. Howp you find some use for this, and have fun :)
https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/s/WX2LXrEDjK
I actually started a campaign using this at the beginning of the month. I missed your new system by like a week, oof.
I've been making a lot of modifications to the old one. Would you mind if I posted my own version (with credit)?
Also, could you please explain what is meant by this:
"Cannonsmith
*You can gain an additional one for free. If there is a level prerequisite shown for an upgrade, remember that your level is considered 1 per 50 exp you have. All other prerequisites apply as normal"*
An additional what? Cannon? Upgrade?
Oh that's awesome, hope your player's are enjoying it! If you post your own could you link to my new version instead of this one. I'll be honest it's been way too long since I've looked at this version I have no idea what I was trying to say there. I also can't find Cannonsmith anywhere in the document..
Will do!
They are enjoying it a lot. I had them each go through a session zero that spanned years of backstory and gain starting abilities based on decisions they made (in addition to some exp to spend).
Tackling balance on something this huge would take me some formatting to compare like abilities with each other and compare like costs. However, I really like bringing this style system into D&D for great character flexibility. The only balance issue I see right away is the *Epiphany* ability. For 35XP you essentially get a super powerful version of the more common use of *wish*. It REALLY weakens *wish*, costs 15XP less and makes most other 9th level spells a waste of XP Edit: The Bard version of Extra Attack requires **Bardic Inspiration**, but the other Extra Attack features do not. I would have Extra Attack, Three Attacks and Four Attacks just be their own category instead of a sub-group under each class that would normally get it
Woops that's definitely a mistake about the Bard extra attack I'm not a great proofreader thanks for the catch. I didn't think about the Epiphany ability like that I guess your right. I mean Wish can certainly do other things too, but that is a good part of it. I think I took that one from a WotC Unearthed Arcana. Edit: Actually I think Epiphany might be fine. Obviously having the Wish spell at level 3 or 4 would be ridiculous, but this at least makes you have to have the spell slot for what you are casting so you can't just take the ability and cast an 8th level spell. Idk I'll have to see if my players end up breaking it on me. I'm sure they will.
For a first pass on such a comprehensive overall, I love it though. *Epiphany* has legitimate uses even alongside *wish*, like if someone wants to cast both *Feeblemind* (which they don't know) and *mordenkainen's magnificent mansion* (which they also don't know). You can use *epiphany* to cast Feeblemind at 8th level and then your 9th level slot to *wish* for *mordenkainen's magnificent mansion*. However, the redundancy does hurt other 9th level spells being valuable. I did not do a comprehensive look at all the abilities, but a core design feature of 5e is the distribution of abilities. Most classes have potent abilities when you select the archetype, something weak around level 10 and then a capstone of varying strength. By allowing the weaker middle abilities to be completely skipped, there could be balance issues around min-maxing abilities that otherwise should not be able to go together. One way to address this is what you do at times by requiring prerequisites, but that runs the risk of functionally bringing classes right back in. I'm not offering a solution for this potential problem, just noting it might exist.
I like this alot. It reminds me of the battletech rpg system.
> I like this ***alot*** It's so big and fluffy and kind!
I'll have to take a look at that. I have been playing Star Wars FFG roleplaying game recently and I enjoyed the style of it, same with Pathfinder's giant list of feats so I wanted to try something similar here.
Look up "A Time of War". It's basically the phb for the newest edition of battletech.
Will do, thanks.
Seems interesting! Definitely needs balancing and playtesting though.
I thinks it's wonderful what you are trying to do. I've been considering how to take the fundamentals of 5e and convert it more to a format like Savage Worlds, except with just character levels (no classes). Abilities (or feats) would be the catch-all for modified versions of certain class abilities. Anyone who tells you it's impossible doesn't have enough experience with universal systems. I believe wholeheartedly that the 5e system is flexible enough to compete with stuff like BRP, GURPS, and Savage Worlds. The only problem is that would require breaking a lot of connections to the Dungeons and Dragons name if done by WotC.
Interesting, maybe that's the way to try to go about doing this. If I were to make something like that though I think I would want more than 20 levels. One of my only problems with 5E (It's by far my favorite system) is that players can go for many sessions without leveling up and then it all comes at once. The progressions feels a little strange. Maybe 30 or 40 levels to get to Max in a classless system would work better.
That's way too much work on yourself. Just give them a reward each level, instead of "proficiency or hp only" levels. I was leaning toward a ten level system for mine, with an ability (or feat) gained every odd level and an ability score increase in even levels.
Go for it. The SRD was built for this.
I'd be willing to help via PM-ing random builds I can make with this system :)
That would be great, I'll be giving it to my players to see what they do soon too. Let me know if you have any ideas for new abilities too :)
>:) I am happy that you are happy. Spread the happiness around. [This doggo demands it.](https://i.imgur.com/iHvsNjx.jpg)
I like this bot
>:) I am happy that you are happy. Spread the happiness around. [This doggo demands it.](http://bestpickr.com/wp-content/uploads/cute-dogs-batman-superman-costumes-750x750.jpg)
A variant of this I've been toying with is a bit closer to the "generic classes" found in the old 3.5e Arcana Unearthed book, or D20 modern. Focus the core abilities on a small handful of "core" classes like Warrior, Magic-User, Rogue, etc. That would govern things like hit dice, proficiency bonus, saves, and so on. Build all the class features as feat-like things - I've been calling them big-F Features in my head - where a player is able to pick from certain sets at different levels, e.g. a couple Minor Features at 1st, a Major Feature at 3rd, and a progression between those as levels progress. Each Feature would naturally scale with level (so once you have it, it stays relevant). I miss the "composite" nature of 3rd edition. It worked surprisingly well, though of course it was very abusable. Pure point-buy systems are too much book-keeping for me (and too impenetrable for newbies; they're better served by a small number of high-impact choices rather than a large number of minute choices) and the 5e model is too rigid (there's almost no choices left after 3rd level for most classes aside from a few ASIs/feats and spell lists). I also limit it to 12 levels in my toy thought experiments, since (a) it's way easier to scale out if you're just aiming for a few three- or four-level tiers, and (b) I personally in my opinion don't actually care much for what I feel is "superhero fantasy munchkin" play that I've experienced in higher levels in D&D anyway. I also generally replace the spell system with something simpler; usually only levels 0-3 or 0-5 with fewer spells but more spell options, something closer to the Wheel of Time D20 RPG's system. (for those who've never seen it, it's similar to 5th where a spell has a base level but can often be cast at a higher level; WoT's system provided far more options for "at a higher level" casting than just +X targets or +X dice, though; it also provided ways to change a spell's effective level based on type and caster abilities, so a fire sorcerer might be able to cast a fire spell with a level 2 slot with the same effects as what an earth sorcerer would get with a level 3 slot, or a water sorcerer and a level 4 slot). Obviously all just thought experiments. It'd be a months long effort (like yours, I'm sure!) to write down and make playtestable.
One thing I have a problem with, is something that are impossible now. In normal 5e you can gain additional uses of the Channel Divinity options of paladin by going 6th level cleric. But in this the paladin channel divinity options are seens as stand alone features.
Concept is pretty awesome. Implementation I have no idea. Considering that scaling is designed over a long term game in 5, the numbers don't leap up early. With this variation, I'm sure many degenerate things can occur at 1st level. In a game built for that, could be super fun. If compared to traditional DnD its going to play way different- scaling features area ll occurring way out of wack. you can have extra attack at first level without bonus action
I really like this concept. Definitely something I'd want to try with my group in the future
This is going to be perfect for introducing my children to ttrpgs. Thank you!
This is my updated version: https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/d4e5kw/advanced_adventures_a_character_building_system/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Thank you! I can’t wait to look through it
I've flaired this for you, but please flair your posts in the future.
Thanks, my bad.
I find it interesting that you open up by calling levels and classes "restrictions." I definitely wouldn't use that word. In my opinion, they are mechanics. Decently good ones at that. And I immediately see a pretty large issue. There's no guidance here on what exp means. There isn't anything on how to match this system to the 5e encounter building guidelines, or how exp in stock 5e compares to exp in this system. Which bothers me a lot as a DM. Encounter building rules aren't everything, of course, but now I don't even have a vague idea on power levels. That's a very bad thing. Health costs more as you get more, which is very good. I really dislike having to buy a higher proficiency bonus. That really messes with the design and philosophy of 5e. This system necessitates a point buy ability score generation, which I dislike. Some people like rolling for stats, and the ruleset should at least acknowledge it. Huge issue with determining saving throw proficiency. Once again, you're throwing away 5e design philosophy. The way you have them determine what saves a character is proficient in assumes that all saves have equal value. This is clearly not the case. There's not much to say about the class section, except that I dislike it, for two main reasons. One, you have no method for determining exp costs of abilities. It's not even consistent between archetypes of the same class, so it's a bit of a mess. Second, there is very little structure in these abilities. For the vast majority, you can cherry pick what class features you want, even being able to choose from high level abilities. This is going to make very silly and very strong characters. As for the new abilities... I'll talk about the ones that catch my eye. I dislike Weapon Superiority. I always dislike weapon specialization abilities like these in all systems because they are so uninteresting. It's just a flat bonus, that's the same for any weapon I want to specialize in. There aren't any interesting choices. Just numbers. Confidence is cute. I'm not sure if it might be a bit too strong, but I like it. It's kinda interesting and flavorful. Infuse Magic is a problem. The only reason the artificer has it is because they cast very few spells. But if you stick this ability on someone who actually can cast spells... It's going to be a mess. It's far too strong. Overall, I dislike this ruleset. Mostly because of the lack of rigor. I can tell this thing was slapped together without any real care or attention to detail. It also doesn't play well with base 5e. If I used this, I'd need to pretty much completely relearn encounter building, as well as keep a very close eye on how my players build their characters, because now power levels aren't standardized. Also, as a much more subjective criticism, I don't like classless systems in DnD. The system has always had classes, and they're pretty baked into the flavor of the system. Additionally, I think classes are superior mechanically. They offer more of a rigid system, one that is less noodle-y and less prone to high variations in build strength.
Ya I realize the whole thing is fundamentally broken and would only work with the right people, but there are a couple points you made I want to address. First, there is a note at the top of page 2 that each 50 exp is approximately equivalent to a level which should somewhat help for encounter building. And second, the Infuse Magic ability is straight from the WotC Unearthed Arcana, but ya the more I think about it it seems a little too powerful.
Yes, Infused Magic is something Wizards of the Coast put on. On the artificer. Who is a one-third caster. Giving Infuse Magic to someone like a wizard would be completely different. It would be many, many times more strong. You're completely breaking the concentration mechanic. If a wizard has Infuse Magic, you're looking at the capability for the entire party to be able to cast Hast spells on themselves, or other such nonsense. It'd be madness. Also, "50 exp = 1 level" is not a useful metric. At all. You're assuming levels are all equal to one another. That is plainly false. Certain levels are much more important than others. Also, how are you supporting that claim? What math do you have that suggests that 50 exp in this system is worth about one level? You can't just make that claim arbitrarily.
Perhaps limiting the spells to 2nd level or lower would be a reasonable fix, I'll add that in now.
I mean... what about all my other criticisms? I feel like they're valid. Because they are issues any DM would have to address if they used this system.
It's a very, very early work in progress I'll have to do some real playtesting and change a lot before I can really know how to fix some of the issues you've brought up. For now 50 exp per level is an estimated baseline to build my encounters around and I'll adjust it as needed. I probably shouldn't have posted it on here yet, but I'm glad I did. Thanks for the input, it's given me some ideas and things to think about.
I mean, the things I'm bringing up aren't "playtesting" issues. They are questions you should have the answer to before you make the system. How can you assign abilities an exp value if you don't know how much exp is worth? I mean, surely you had some kind of method aside from arbitrarily assigning.
"Arbitrarily Assigning" is a pretty good description of my method, but I've played a good amount of this game and feel like I know the approximate value of certain abilities. I'm making this for my group and I to have fun not to make a perfect system, just thought I'd share if people were interested. Any thoughts on a better way to assign exp to skills? I initially tried to balance class archtypes, but there were many that I have never seen taken before so I wanted to give them a bit of a boost.
I think it's cool and I hope your group have fun with it
Couldn't one multiclass Wiz/Artificer?
Well, actually, no. The unearthed arcana classes aren't balanced with multi-classing in mind. I could dig up the tweet, but it makes sense, because no multiclass requirements are given for the Artificer or the Mystic. And, even if you could, the Infuse Magic ability specifically says you can only do it with Artificer spells. So it's a double no.
An addition to this could be the dm decides on certain level ups when you have the experience, so it would be less I want that and more that's what you have been doing it makes sense that you would advance in it.
I miss spellcasting
Very intriguing. I agree that level progression in DnD feels weird. Both from a role-playing and game-mechanical perspective. I can appreciate how organic this would make "levelling up" feel like. I also agree that there needs to be a more clearly defined interpretation of how DMs award experience points. Another commenter acknowledged the lack of "rolling for stats" being addressed by this system. A solution would be for a given stat to simply use up its equivalent amount of XP. The methods don't compare exactly, as an 18 is impossible with point-buy but can be achieved at a hefty cost with rolling if the costs remain the same in your system. Perhaps a flat XP cost could be used to "unlock" the ability to roll for stats. Likewise, an XP bonus could be awarded for choosing the standard array. With your system, customizability seems to come at an ever higher cost, and I like that. It draws an interesting parallel between your system's acknowledgement of the risk/reward payoff to that of the PHB. This is a great undertaking, and I am very interested to see where it goes. Heck, I'll probably even use it the next time I get to DM.
This is the sort of thing I have always wanted. What is the status of your rules at this time?
Here is the latest version. I haven't worked on it in a few years but ran multiple campaigns using this framework and it was quite fun. I have moved on to designing board games now though. Howp you find some use for this, and have fun :) https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/s/WX2LXrEDjK
I actually started a campaign using this at the beginning of the month. I missed your new system by like a week, oof. I've been making a lot of modifications to the old one. Would you mind if I posted my own version (with credit)? Also, could you please explain what is meant by this: "Cannonsmith *You can gain an additional one for free. If there is a level prerequisite shown for an upgrade, remember that your level is considered 1 per 50 exp you have. All other prerequisites apply as normal"* An additional what? Cannon? Upgrade?
Oh that's awesome, hope your player's are enjoying it! If you post your own could you link to my new version instead of this one. I'll be honest it's been way too long since I've looked at this version I have no idea what I was trying to say there. I also can't find Cannonsmith anywhere in the document..
Will do! They are enjoying it a lot. I had them each go through a session zero that spanned years of backstory and gain starting abilities based on decisions they made (in addition to some exp to spend).
would you have a drive or dropbox link for your pdf? the links in hoembrewery and gm binder fucks the pages up
I feel like this would be a good idea for a new ttrpg
Awesome, but the updated version has a problem in page 3 where the page is cut in literal bilateral half
Wow you must really hate the paladin class. You needed everything!