Unnamed 3e-inspired game

[pawsplay]

I don't want to jink myself by talking about a project before it's almost done, but... I'm getting kind of stuck here.

Working on my 3e-inspired variant, and I'm getting stuck on a name. The vibe is early 2000s nostalgia, but the game is designed around being first and foremost playable.

Names I have pondered at length:
Glaive & Grimoire
Chronicles of the Dragon Kingdoms
Heartbreaker Fantasy

So I have ampersand traditional; shameless trading on the word "dragon" which will always help sell books; and shameless irony, satirizing both Ron Edwards and Warhammer, with the idea that the cover would be like a greatsword named Heartbreaker that shows up in the magic items section.

But I really would like something that evokes more that *era of play*, and I don't want to resort to look-alike covers that resemble an illuminated codex. Also, I do kind of like the "da Vinci sketchbook" aesthetic but I'm a big fan of printing on white paper.

So I really want a name that suggests circa 2001 D&D, covering the core experience from about 1st to 13th level, with maybe a hint of AD&D-isms but not a fussy or goony way, with a strong high fantasy feel, a la Lord of the Rings. Real fantasy romance with a drizzle of pulp weirdness and swords-and-sorcery.

Thoughts?

 

[Bunch]

Gamelords came up with the name Thieves Guild because both Thieves & Guild seemed to be on the best selling games. How could they go wrong using both. So if "&" gets you dales go for it!

 

[Spartan]

Those are all pretty cool names, TBH. Better than any I would come up with. If you could think of something starting with "O" before Glaive, then you could call it "OG": Orginal Gangsters & Glaives or something. Which is why I have no business coming up with names.

 

[Triumvir]

I like Glaives & Grimoires. I don't have a feel for what "early 00s nostalgia" would be like.

 

[Nakana]

Brainstorming:

Millenium Dragons
Fantasy Y2k
Fantasy: Year 2000
d20 Reborn
Ranks and Bonuses
Fantasy ∃⋿

 

[Moracai]

The Hunt for the Stackable +1 Modifiers.

 

[SavAce]

I, too, have difficulty inventing a cool and somehow early 2000s evoking name. So, I am only left with mostly not serious attempts!

• Prestige & Class
• The Five Foot Step
• Use Rope & Innuendo
• d20: Not So Modern
• Feats & Full Action

 

[The Mad Hatter]

SInce it's a 3e based Heartbreaker, a system that definitely has its thorns, how about Hearts & Roses. But maybe that makes it sound too much like romantic fantasy without the other bits you want.

 

[pawsplay]

SInce it's a 3e based Heartbreaker, a system that definitely has its thorns, how about Hearts & Roses. But maybe that makes it sound too much like romantic fantasy without the other bits you want.

That sounds a little, well, flowery, but I kind of like this direction. I might have to give this approach more thought.

 

[pawsplay]

Who is king of the fighters?

One thing I really like about Fantasy Craft is the capstone ability design. Since you can take an advanced class at 4th level and progress ten levels in it, each advanced class usually has a capstone at 10th. So, to balance this, all the base classes get a really nice, powerful ability at 13th level.

Imagining a fighter that cleaves pretty closely to the 3e/3.5 spine of the game, what kind of thing would you like to see at 13th level? Some special power? Social influence? Something that does both? Damage reduction?

 

[TJS]

Since it’s early 2000s nostalgia,

Double Swords & Spiked Chains.

 

[Jetstream]

Heartbreaker Fantasy

I advise against this because there is a small company called Fantasy Heartbreaker.

 

[AsenRG]

Who is king of the fighters?

One thing I really like about Fantasy Craft is the capstone ability design. Since you can take an advanced class at 4th level and progress ten levels in it, each advanced class usually has a capstone at 10th. So, to balance this, all the base classes get a really nice, powerful ability at 13th level.

Imagining a fighter that cleaves pretty closely to the 3e/3.5 spine of the game, what kind of thing would you like to see at 13th level? Some special power? Social influence? Something that does both? Damage reduction?

If it clings to the 3.5 design, isn't 13th level way past the point when you should already be playing a full caster class?

 

[TJS]

Yeah I'd suggest that what I would like to see with a Fighter in some kind of 3e based game is some kind of mechanism for beginning to turn into some kind of demigod or ascendant some time around 10th to 12 level. (I'd look at something like the Mortal Swords or Ascendants in the Malazan books for how something like this would work in a way that feels more D&D than Marvel Superheroes).

I'm not sure if that's in the spirit of 3e or not. On the one hand it's not what the Fighter class is conceptually, on the other hand in 3e your Fighter would probably have some kind of highly magical prestige class by that point and a host of magic items.

 

[pawsplay]

Assume for a moment that some players wanted to remain a fighter. What would seem mildly exciting?

 

[AsenRG]

Assume for a moment that some players wanted to remain a fighter. What would seem mildly exciting?

E6!


For a more serious answer, you need inherent ability stuff that counters the magic defences of a wizard at the same level. Otherwise, you're a waste of party slots.

It's just the nature of the beast.

 

[Moracai]

Assume for a moment that some players wanted to remain a fighter. What would seem mildly exciting?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tome_of_Battle:_The_Book_of_Nine_Swords

 

[pawsplay]

E6!

Well, it's going to be pretty hard to hand out an ability at 13th if characters only go to 6th.

Part of my design process is reining in some of the issues with higher level play. However, the game is going to have a 1-20 level progression for the standard game, with the assumption many campaigns will peter out or hit the "retirement" stage at around, you know, 13th level or so.

For a more serious answer, you need inherent ability stuff that counters the magic defences of a wizard at the same level. Otherwise, you're a waste of party slots.

It's just the nature of the beast.

Can you talk more about countering magic defenses?

 

[AsenRG]

Man, the E6 part was obviously a joke.

Can you talk more about countering magic defenses?

...you want me to list every single way to counter fighters (and no, that doesn't mean "those that don't have the Right Magical Item, deserved it")? Fly, Invisibility, Intangibility, whatever?

Yeah, I won't do that. But list them, and give the fighter a counter, which he should get by the same level the wizard gets the spell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tome_of_Battle:_The_Book_of_Nine_Swords

Yeah, this exactly.

 

[pawsplay]

Man, the E6 part was obviously a joke.

I chuckled.

...you want me to list every single way to counter fighters (and no, that doesn't mean "those that don't have the Right Magical Item, deserved it")? Fly, Invisibility, Intangibility, whatever?

Yeah, I won't do that. But list them, and give the fighter a counter, which he should get by the same level the wizard gets the spell.

No, I don't. I just wondered what you meant. Hopefully, "a sword, wielded by someone who is very good at swords" is a counter to a lot of spells. "Having a longbow" is pretty good against fly. Invisibility is tough, but doable. I'll think more about intangibility.

However, I am talking about someone who is truly, conceptually, a fighter. A very good fighter, capable of facing off against dragons and sorcerers. Someone whose fighting skills are valuable, to the extent you would perhaps miss having one in your party, if you don't. There are definitely options to be or become something else, but definitely someone in the Madmartigan - Lancelot - Red Sonja genre.

One idea I had a long time ago for a fighter ability was "screw up a spell." You do something (throw a rock, insult their mother, mess with a component, just something) and cause someone to have to make a concentration check. But I feel like that's too specific, and too focused on enemy spellcasters, to be a capstone itself. In fact, I'd like that concept to be a general part of the game. Wizards are getting nerfs, but really, more along the lines of getting limitations. I'm not really focused on fighters being able to specifically counter wizards, but on really good at being fighters.

Like, if I wanted to know what a really good wizard ability would be, I'm not asking for "being immune to swords."

Yeah, this exactly.

Well, no. I get why some people like it, but if anything, things are going in the other direction. I want to keep the fighter straightforward, while making combat itself more dynamic. I might tinker with a "sword adept" somewhere along the road as advanced class, but it's not part of the core design. This is for the 20-level fighter, not for a "warblade."

 

[AsenRG]

I chuckled.

No, I don't. I just wondered what you meant. Hopefully, "a sword, wielded by someone who is very good at swords" is a counter to a lot of spells. "Having a longbow" is pretty good against fly. Invisibility is tough, but doable. I'll think more about intangibility.

And that right here is the problem.

Real-life fighters can fight without looking (fuck it, I've shown to a colleague that I can do that enough to overcome him, and I'm not at the level of those guys I'm talking about). Why is invisibility "tough"?
That should be available pretty much at 3rd level.

Same for intangibility, same for pretty much anything.

However, I am talking about someone who is truly, conceptually, a fighter. A very good fighter, capable of facing off against dragons and sorcerers. Someone whose fighting skills are valuable, to the extent you would perhaps miss having one in your party, if you don't. There are definitely options to be or become something else, but definitely someone in the Madmartigan - Lancelot - Red Sonja genre.

Yeah, and those guys are simply mid-level in the D&D genre. They're the biggest fishes in a world where nobody is at 9th level yet, but that's all.

One idea I had a long time ago for a fighter ability was "screw up a spell." You do something (throw a rock, insult their mother, mess with a component, just something) and cause someone to have to make a concentration check. But I feel like that's too specific, and too focused on enemy spellcasters, to be a capstone itself.

Yes, indeed. It should be a common ability.

Do I need to tell you a game that allows you this on a successful attack?

In fact, I'd like that concept to be a general part of the game. Wizards are getting nerfs, but really, more along the lines of getting limitations. I'm not really focused on fighters being able to specifically counter wizards, but on really good at being fighters.

Being able to fight with your eyes closed is "being good at being a fighter".

Like, if I wanted to know what a really good wizard ability would be, I'm not asking for "being immune to swords."

If you were asking for a wizard's ability my answer would be "a spell".

Seriously, wizards don't need extra abilities, spellcasting is already a scalable one that progresses with level, unlike 99,9% of other classes' abilities.

Well, no. I get why some people like it, but if anything, things are going in the other direction. I want to keep the fighter straightforward, while making combat itself more dynamic. I might tinker with a "sword adept" somewhere along the road as advanced class, but it's not part of the core design. This is for the 20-level fighter, not for a "warblade."

Sure.

Then my answer is E6, and this time it's in all seriousness. The Fighter can't sustain a competition with 4th level spells, much less beyond.

 

[pawsplay]

Ok, well, I'm not designing an E6 game, but let me know if you have any other ideas.

 

[AsenRG]

Plenty, but none you'd want to use, so I'll switch back to reading.

 

[TJS]

Assume for a moment that some players wanted to remain a fighter. What would seem mildly exciting?

First you need to fix the base, because a big part of the issue is that the base class weakens over time.

At the very least Fighters need a good Will save. I would give them good saves across the board (that takes a schtick from the Monk but well...). That's not sexy, but it would at least make them less frustrating to play. One of the big issues with 3e Fighters is how easily they start getting taken off the board at high levels.

I would give them a wider skill list and at least two extra skills (I know you said you don't want to give out more skills, but I really think for the Fighter it's necessary - however, if you don't want to give out more skills, then at least a wider skill list so that a player can sink some points into Int and realise a basic concept without multiclassing).

With those two things you at least have a class that's seems functional on it's own rather than as a dip for multiclassing or a road that progressively goes nowhere.

(The other thing that would really need to happen is to take the Druid and Cleric and delay their spellcasting progression to only 3 levels out 4 - they're just insanely overpacked classes.)

As for what to do at higher levels? That's the rub. The 3e Fighter is conceptually based around being a highly skilled normal person in a system that wants to represent that through clearly associated mechanics. Part of the reason no attempt at fixing the 3e Fighter has ever met with widespread satisfaction is that you simply can't scale the 3e Fighter effectively to a higher level without breaking at least one of the core tenets of the class design.

Mechanically, it's not too difficult just give them better feats they can only take after 10th level. Properly scaled feats.

The issue with that is you really need to choose:
1) Those feats are associated but are supernatural in explanation in some way.
2) Those feats scale and are theoretically mundane but are abstract and highly disociated (eg once a day unleash a single attack for 20d6 worth of damage.). You can write whatever description you like, but at the end it's kind of beside the point, because in the end what you have are mechanics (like hit points at high levels) that avoid being supernatural mostly because they don't invite us to think about them too much.

So really I think it's up to you personally to choose the way you want to break the 3e Fighter design that you're most comfortable with.

 

[pawsplay]

Fighters are already getting 4+ skill ranks, freer skill choices, and better saves. I'm rebuilding the math where, instead of a treadmill of strong progressions, "slow" to-hit, and "poor" saves remain even, and characters with better progression mostly just get better. So, long story short, high level fighters should be making their saves pretty often.

On the other end, I think one of the biggest issues with 3e and spellcasting isn't normal progression, but all the free candy and everything that makes it "easy." Empower Magic as written was basically a mistake, because in certain circumstances it let damage outpace the expected progression. The expectation is that magic is to be conserved, to some extent. Bad guys aren't expected to "tank" several high level spells; if the wizard cuts loose, things suck or die.Only real boss-type creatures are going to be able to resist a concentrated "alpha strike." So there's no reason to help wizards run at 110% all the time, and so they can be tuned back to where they should be, numerically.

Clerics get a trimmed down spell list, and are more reliant on their Domains for breadth. The whole "this could be a cleric spell, let's give it to everyone" was not only power creep, but didn't really leave much room for Domains to offer greater spell choice. Like, who cares if a Fire domain gives you fireball, if some sourcebook lets all clerics cast draining hellfire blast anyway.

 

[TJS]

Those all sound like good changes.

One thing that might help Fighters a lot is the revised action economy from Pathfinder Unchained. It's very similar to what they used in Pathfinder 2. It basically gives everyone 3 actions which means Fighters can attack and make multiple attacks and standard action spells become 2 action spells which gives Fighters a benefit in terms of the action economy.

The other thing that would help Fighters is to take the basic maneuvres of the system, standardise them and then give Fighters a more straightforward way to access them. The Book of Iron Might by Mike Mearls is a good resource for this as it was on the right track, just overly complicated as so much was from that period.

Eg. Instead of Trips provoking an Attack of Opportunity just make them a -5 attack which you could offset if you were willing to take an attack of opportunity.

Then you give Fighters some kind of resource, like Stamina Points, which they can specifically spend to offset penalties (this means that Fighters can do manoeuvre regularly, but they don't turn into one trick ponies by being built to spam a single manoeuvre.

 

[Triumvir]

How closely do you want to stick to 3e magic? Because logically, the other way to balance fighters is to nerf magic.

I don't like traditional D&D Vancian magic, for all the usual reasons - too reliable and utilitarian, not very magic-like, quadratic power scaling.

D20 Call of Cthulhu had a system that looks great on paper, although fair warning, I have never tried it. Most spells cost Sanity (although that game's Sanity system was a bit messed up, but that's another story), and many cost attribute points. There is a description of a spell that costs CON requiring the caster to contribute some of their own flesh in the casting!

Or there is something like Wonder and Wickedness - level-less spells with a chance of failure.

Far from a fully-specced solution, but maybe worth considering.

 

[pawsplay]

The other thing that would help Fighters is to take the basic maneuvres of the system, standardise them and then give Fighters a more straightforward way to access them. The Book of Iron Might by Mike Mearls is a good resource for this as it was on the right track, just overly complicated as so much was from that period.

Eg. Instead of Trips provoking an Attack of Opportunity just make them a -5 attack which you could offset if you were willing to take an attack of opportunity.

Definitely everything's going to be more accessible, less "build"-driven.

Then you give Fighters some kind of resource, like Stamina Points, which they can specifically spend to offset penalties (this means that Fighters can do manoeuvre regularly, but they don't turn into one trick ponies by being built to spam a single manoeuvre.

That's an interesting idea, I'll look at that. Right now, my thinking is that with the adjusted math, fighters will be able to do just do lots of stuff. Taking a -4 penalty or even a -8 penalty to do something will be viable in certain situations.

The same thing with skills. There won't really be "trained only," applications, at least, not many. If it's something really only some people can do, it's a Talent ("feat").

 

[pawsplay]

I'm not sure if this is a serious idea, but while I was out driving today, the name Redhawk came to me.

 

[lategamer]

But I really would like something that evokes more that *era of play*

Vorpal Blades

Dragons & Dweomers

Have to say, Dragon Kingdoms I like but it seems too...on the nose?

Because logically, the other way to balance fighters is to nerf magic.

Or have embodiment of magic in objects be a common way to do it. Have it so a party is badgering the wizard to use their spell slots for Enhancements and Enchantments rather than the stuff the wizard might actually want. And have those easy to cast. So just before getting into a fight the wizard is running around doing the D&D equivalent of Bladesharps and Armour enhancements.

 

[TristramEvans]

Dragons of the Third Age