Magic items, or lack there-of

It looks like we now have enough information to figure out how monsters get tougher in higher levels of play in our system. I've been working a lot on this, and boy-howdy is it a stinking hot mess. Anyway, first things first. Let's talk about magic items in 5E and how monster progression is affected by magic items.

It isn't. 5E does not take magical items players have accumulated into consideration when considering how much harder mosnters should be as PCs level up, unlike 4E. I think this is a good policy since magic items cannot be bought and are not guaranteed to be found. However, if/once the players actually do accumulate such magic arms and armor the game gets too easy in the higher levels. Due to this balance issue, I'd take the scarcity of magic items a step further for the purpose of our system: player characters can only attune to one true magic artifact. Yes, just one.

Balance reasons are of course the primary reason. But there are two more reason why players should be limited to one magic true magic item (probably arms/armor) in our system. (1) Magic items are like ninjas. Ninjas are more impressive when there's fewer of them.

The sheer rarity of magic items brings more flavor and increases the worth of true magic items that the PCs do find. And the true magic item the PCs choose to attune to become a signature magic item to that PC. Anybody remember the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon in the 80s? Each of the magic items the teenagers were given became iconic to each character. Think of like Drittz's Scimitars, Wonder Woman's lasso, Conan's Atlantean sword, Aragorn's sword Anduril, Thor's hammer and Captain America's shield. Even the One Ring carried by Frodo. Trying to giving these heroes more than one iconic piece of equipment would make the primary item less memorable.

Folks remember Gandalf's nameless staff more than his named magical sword (Glamdring) since it was used so in such an iconic scene with the Balrog. This in spite of the sword being used in killing the Demon. Narya, one of the Rings of Power owned by Gandalf, had huge power and plot significance but wasn't memorable either since it had zero dramatic scenes. Stick to the staff, Tolkein. Gandalf is uber enough as it is.

(2) Furthermore, I want a system where players are able to play non-humanoid characters which do not have opposable thumbs. Not having fingers and thumbs is bad enough, but getting weaker compared to their party members who are loading up on magic weapons, armors, cape, rings, amulet, circlets, and so on would push such character concepts out. A non-humanoid is much more limited in the number of equipment slots. So fewer true magic artifacts per player character helps balance them out a great deal.

For the purpose of true magic items, some true magic items would be considered as a set. For example: the true magic of a pair of daggers only activates when you use both. For attunement purposes this pair of daggers are considered a single true magic item. Right now I can only think of dual weapons which should be a set to allow Drizzt types or Galtar and the Golden Lance. Maybe a sword+shield combo? I'm sure GM's will think of something.

Of course, limited-use items such as scrolls or even a single-use Ring of Blasting would not count towards this attunement limit. Some more minor magical items may be excluded too, such as the Cloak of Elvenkind. Maybe. But items like the Ring of Protection, Boots of Speed or Belt of Giant Strength would be true magic items.

I'd recommend  to game masters that True magic artifacts are never randomly found: they should be part of a plot or quest, a revered artifact, reforged from the shards of a previous artifact (think Narsil to Anduril) or ripped from the cold dead fingers of a major villain who had been using the item to harass players all this time. Something like that. Think of how much drama was attached to Conan finding the Atlantean sword, and it isn't even magical! True magic items are rare and incredibly valuable, impress this upon the players!

I think it may not be out of place for players to request from their GMs for something specific for their character in the future which best fits their character concept and story. Think Anduril in this respect. I'd probably have the item's potency increase as the PC reaches new tiers of play. The artifact's true power is unlocked through consistent use and the worthiness/power of the owner. Or perhaps the true power is unlocked as you collect all the pieces of a set (each individual piece put together would be the equivalent of another player's single artifact?). Or simply a normal item which somehow became infused with powerful magic through the deeds of the PC or a blessing from divinity. Whatever it is, it's gotta be memorable.

Alternate ability scores?

So I just read the Angry DM's post on why the classic ability scores in D&D (Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma) need an update. Summary: Ability scores are the primary tool in 5E D&D to resolve non-combat actions (not skills!) and the selection of ability scores are not intuitive enough for this purpose because they were not originally conceived for this purpose. And though his language is... colorful... he has a point. Smart fellow. And now I'm inspired to improve on them and make my own.

Okay, I can't actually change the ability scores. No, really, I can't. It doesn't matter what the issues are with the current ability scores are, I can't change them. As the  Angry DM points out, the classic D&D ability scores are a "sacred cow". Revered. Untouchable. Holy. Have influenced affected the ability scores of every gaming system thereafter. Heck, even D20 modern uses the same classic ability scores!

Fallout uses a different set of attributes, S.P.E.C.I.A.L (Strength, Perception, Endurance, Charisma, Intelligence, Agility and Luck) but Fallout gets away with it because it's not a revision of D&D (also, it's a primarily a CRPG in a different setting and the tabletop games came later). 13th Age and Pathfinder for instance can't and never will get away with revising the classic ability scores. And neither will I.

But it's fun to consider. What can I say? I like the mental exercise.

So what ability scores are best for a medieval fantasy D&D if used for action resolution? In my opinion, what  attributes you should set for an RPG system it depends on the setting, the character archetypes played by the player and that setting actions the player characters take in the setting. These are all closely related.

Let's say, we were making a game which was very... Catholic. You play as a crusaders, battling heretics and defending the faith from its enemies. Perhaps Faith is going to be an important ability score for such a setting. If there are armies involved and lots of NPC soldiers of the faith to lead (since the crusades was a war), a leadership-type score may be appropriate. If the biggest challenge was temptations and weariness from travelling so freaking far to unfamiliar lands, well.

Alternatively, we could just pull up the classical Armor of God verse from the bible: "Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God."

Okay, it may be bit tricky to work with truth, righteousness, gospel, faith, salvation and spirit as attributes which resolve actions, but you can't beat that flavor!

Alright, I hope you got my point so put aside Crusader Quest and let's focus back on D&D's medieval fantasy. It's probably easiest if I once again bring out the Big Three... I mean the Big Four: Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric.

The Fighter is the easiest. These are your Aragorns, Gimlis, Conans, etc. Strength is fine. We'll keep strength. But keep in mind that in the original version of D&D, strength also represented other aspects of physical prowess such as athleticism and gross physical coordination. Yes, gross physical coordination. Dexterity didn't determine gross physical coordination, Strength did. That's why in D&D, strength also gives a bonus to hit chance when attacking with melee weapons and not Dexterity. I always wondered about why strength helped you hit things and not dexterity as a child, as I read my player's handbook from the Red Box set.

I'd like to uncouple hit chance from Strength. I'll come back to this later.

The Rogue have always been represented by Dexterity. Linguistically, the word means good with fine motor skills. This worked fine with the role of the rogue as the "skill monkey". Dexterity was there for the expressed purpose of helping skills checks. Those skills were open lock, remove traps, hide in shadows, pickpocket, move silently, and so on. The concept of agility was folded into 'Dexterity', so it helped with AC as well. Dexterity also boosted initiative as apparently reflexes and speed got folded into dexterity as well. In earlier editions of D&D, Dexterity did help you aim bows but did NOT add to bow/ranged damage. There were no finesse weapons back then so Rogues needed Strength to hit folks with daggers/shortswords for that sweet backstab damage (see Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment).

3rd edition introduced a number of changes to make Rogues more relevant in combat. The most significant was the concept of finesse, where you could get a bonus to attack with a light weapons like a rapier or dagger with dexterity instead of strength but ONLY if you you had the "Finesse" feat. However finesse did not allow a bonus to damage back then.  3rd edition also introduced the reflex save which was only now keyed to Dexterity, and thus help rogues dodge most of fireballs. Previously saving throws were keyed to class, not ability scores, and thus the Fighter were better at resisting fireballs. Bows do more damage with dexterity in this edition too.

5th edition took the Finesse feature even further, making it a natural property of light weapons rather than a feat tax, and allowed Dexterity to add to damage as well. All this was done to make the poor Rogue more relevant in of combat but in doing so may have turned Dexterity into the best ability score in the game since dexterity retained the benefits of improving AC and initiative.

--------

One Stat to rule them all, One Stat to find them; One Stat to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them.

---------


Angry DM complained that concepts like reflexes and agility got folded in dexterity. I'm not so concerned: that's a semantic issue which doesn't really generate confusion since there is no ability score which represents agility better than dexterity. Anyway, replacing the term dexterity is tricky because so many fine motor actions in D&D really do depend on manual dexterity, not gross agility. Opening locks and removing traps in particular (pick-pocketing too, although it is kind of rare to see in play). And mechanically, we still kind of need Dex to help with AC in light armor because the poor Rogue really needs it. We certainly don't want Dexterity to be the "One stat to rule them all" if we can however, so perhaps reducing the power of dexterity. We'll come back to this later.

Update: Aha, Chong Jia Zhen has supplied me a very nice term which may better encompass both concepts of dexterity and agility: Finesse. Finesse it is!

The Wizard gains power from knowledge and research. They even carry around BOOKS to help them cast spells. Intelligence is fine.

The Cleric on the other hand... Wisdom, really? Linguistically, the word wisdom, to me, means the ability to make good judgement and decisions. Making decisions and judgement well is NOT an attribute of the player's character. Nope. Making decisions and judgement is the duty of the player herself, who makes decisions on behalf of the character. Besides, wisdom comes primarily from experience, something that is tracked separately from the ability score system.

Which actions in 5E are resolved by wisdom? The skills listed are Animal Handling, Insight, Medicine, Perception, Survival. So wise people are supposed to be very observant and good scouts in D&D. Erm. Clerics make for good scouts, trackers and have good survival skills? Being able to read people well sounds more like a streetwise thief trait to me. It looks like wisdom isn't really important for action resolution in D&D, and that's probably a good thing since true wisdom depends on the players.

What is the primary attribute of priests, pastors, and clergy? By what means should these clerics perform miracles in the name of their gods? Faith, of course. Thanks to a quote by Jesus Christ, faith in popular culture is unquestionably the means through which miracles are performed and demons are cast out (Matthew 17: 19-20). However, faith doesn't really work well as an attribute used for D&D action resolution outside of casting divine spells... I mean praying for miracles. We really want an attribute that sounds useful to everyone, not just Clerics. (Hear that Dark Souls?)

What other attribute are most characteristic of clergy?  Priests evangelize to folk to attract worshipers, counsel those in grief, convince their flock to follow the teachings of their religion... Yes, Charisma. In fact, the "turn undead" feature was based on a charisma check in many editions of D&D even though wisdom was the cleric's primary statistic and not charisma. All religious leaders depend on their ability to speak to and lead people in order to effectively serve their role and give hope to the hopeless. It is no coincidence that Pentecostal churches are sometimes called charismatic churches. It's why one of the signature cleric spells is "Command"!

But what's that? D&D traditionally associates charisma with Bards (and somehow Sorcerers) and not Clerics? You can't imagine clerics praying for miracles through the power of their charisma? Well fine. Charisma is another attribute that probably depends more on the player's role-play than an actual attribute score so maybe we won't use charisma.

So how about Will. Will is the primary characteristic of the fanatical, the zealots, those who resist temptation and those who hold strongly to their beliefs in the face of opposition. Some folks would argue that charisma is an extension of one's strong will (vs stage fright?) and willingness to force their beliefs onto others. It's easy to see how Will determines the Cleric's ability to pray for miracles, perhaps better than Wisdom.

Right, so we keep Strength, Finesse, Intelligence, but replace Wisdom with Will. Two left.

Constitution has never made sense to me. Constitution is the ability score that improves your health. Shouldn't that be Strength?  Yes, you could argue that this is the difference between a body builder (strength?) and a marathon runner (constitution?). But stamina isn't health: who would take more punches to the stomach, the body builder or the marathon runner? Strong muscle tension helps reduce bruising and injury when hit.

Functionally, the classes who need a large pool of hit points the most are the ones at the front lines taking hits, the warriors.  Might as well fold constitution's benefits into strength which they'll need anyway. Bye Constitution! You won't be missed.

Update: Flavor reasons aside, a more important reason why Constitution needs to go however is because there is no common action which keys off constitution that needs to be resolved. The endurance skill is gone in 5E due to how rarely it comes into play. It's been folded into strength checks and athletics. Unless poison drinking contests becomes a common adventuring activity, constitution is pretty much out.

Finally, in D&D constitution is a compulsory score to put points into for optimization purposes. There is no class in the game who can afford not to stuff points into constitution. Constitution is an Ability Score tax essentially which everyone needs to put points into in order to be optimal. The  constitution stat essentially reduces the number of meaningful choices for players to make. Reduced meaningful choices is bad design folks. It needs to go.

----

If you find this concept of reduced meaningful choices difficult to understand, try watching this video by Extra Credits.

"If there is a definitive right answer that can be ascertained wholly through mathematics or strict logical reasoning at the time of making the choice, the choice is no longer meaningful." The prime example they use are the skill trees in Word of Warcraft long ago, where while there are choices to be made there was in fact only one optimal selection.

Let me give an extreme example to show why constitution is a bad ability score. Imagine that there is an ability score called LEARNING. For every bonus modifier you have in this ability score, you will gain an extra level every level up. Basically, it is a ability score that is mandatory for everyone to invest points into. Sounds bad, right?

Constitution is the same way, but to a lesser degree since it's important but not nearly as mandatory. But in a way that lesser degree of importance makes it even worse than my example of LEARNING above. Since it is not so obvious that Constitution is mandatory, less min-maxy players may fail to invest adequately into it. Placing a trap for less wise players is not a good design if you want your game to be accessible.

----

But wait! If I realigned the bonus health to strength instead, doesn't that mean strength is going to be the new Uber stat? Not if there's another ability score which improves health. That would be Will. Of course, the bonus health from Will does not stack with the bonus health from strength. So if you want bonus health you either stack up strength or will.

So now we have TWO must-have stats. Er. Oops?

Right then. No ability score should improve health, period. That probably works better. Huh. It's so obvious now when I think about it again. Bonus health is attached to class features or races instead, and monster damage is rebalanced with consideration for the overall lower hit points.

Charisma is one of the ability scores that have been subject to some hate. Yes, players do need to talk a lot to NPCs. Interaction is one of the 3 pillars of adventure. But have you ever seen a player give an epic speech in role-play, then roll a natural 1 on his ability check with charisma? Assigning charisma to an ability score statistic meddles with role-playing that the players themselves do. In my games, I normally give players a choice: role-play the interaction or roll it. Rolling it allows the players with high charisma characters but are not personally sure what to say some due. But even the players with high charisma characters often want to role-play it instead. It's just more fun to role-play interactions if you can do it yourself.

That's the thing: most of the actions in D&D are resolved by rolls because you can't do it in real life or during a tabletop game session. Talking is the one of two actions that CAN be done by players themselves during a tabletop game session (the other is puzzle-solving). I don't think a dice roll should do it on the players behalf. Players who are not good at speaking should put in the effort to learn. It's a valuable life skill.

How fun would puzzle-solving be if relegated to an Intelligence dice roll instead of giving the players an actual puzzle? What, you did that as a DM? Don't do it again. Give the players the puzzle to solve.

So that leaves Strength, Finesse, Intelligence, Will... and that's it? Better see if these match up with the common actions folks like to take in D&D. Conveniently, there's a list to help us; the skills (and some tools which used to be skills).

5E's original skills are:
Strength: Athletics
Finesse: Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, Stealth
Intelligence: Arcana, History, Investigation, Nature, Religion
Wisdom: Animal Handling, Insight, Medicine, Perception, Survival
Charisma: Deception, Intimidation, Performance, Persuasion

As well as some important tools which used to be skills:
Thieves’ tools (Probably Finesse)

Hrmmmm. I'm scrapping using a Charisma roll for interactions so all the interaction skills are irrelevant. We can probably assign the other charisma checks, Performance, to Will. Medicine probably best stays in Intelligence (where it used to be in 3E). The real trouble starts when we look at Perception and Insight. Perception and insight have always fitted a bit strangely in wisdom, but these very popular skills don't really fit well in our current ability score selection either.

Perception checks are so common in-game that I'm of the mind that Perception itself Observation? Cognizance? (name changed to reduce confusion of old D&D players) should be the 5th ability score. There is a very very big list of actions often taken by adventurers that depend on observation and perception, including finding hidden doors, finding clues, spotting ambushes, reading body language, looking for traps, tracking, and so on so forth. Being able to spot danger is a really classical trait of an adventurer which somehow didn't get it's own ability score. Let's fix that.

Fortunately for me I intend to use 13th Age's background system in replacement of a laundry list of skills, so I don't need to come up with a fancy new name for the Perception skill such as spotting ambushes like Awareness or Spotting. Conveniently, rangers and scouts who use bows are best known for spotting danger. So having good aim with a ranged weapon now depends on Perception, not dexterityFinesse. Survival and tracking actions sound like they fall under the Perception score. Initiative rolls too, and I wanted to reduce the importance of dexterityFinnese. Great!

I've mentioned that I didn't want strength to improve hit-chance with weapons but I didn't say which ability score should. Maybe Finesse? Maybe Observation?

I think it's best if none of the ability scores help you to hit better. It's consistent with the principle of bounded accuracy, as well as mirrors the flavor better. Flavor-wise, it makes more sense that the primary means through which you improve your chance of hitting with weapons is your skill in using that weapon. That's it. If I was building this ability score system for 3rd edition, player's would depend on their base attack bonus for their to-hit. For 5E, this would be proficiencies, fighting style specialization and tier of play (i.e. levels).

Strength already increases the player's damage per round by directly increasing the damage done in melee. It doesn't need to also increase the player's hit chance with the weapon. The same goes for Finesse weapons: Finesse improves damage already. It doesn't also need to increase the hit-chance. I'd shuffle the bonus damage of bows over to Perception.

Part of the reason why min-maxers shoot for maxing out their primary ability scores is because each increase has so much impact: both hit chance AND damage. Lowering the impact of the ability scores in combat help make less min-maxed builds more competitive.

So I'd have 5 stats: Strength, Finesse, Intelligence, Will, Observation

Strength
-Break stuff, force open doors, jump, etc.
-Damage with melee/throwing weapons,
-Wearing heavy armors
-Resistance to poisons/pushes

Finesse
-Fine motor skills, gross agility, hiding
-Damage with finesse melee/throwing weapons
-AC in light armor
- Resistance to fireballs and other explosions

Intelligence
-Knowledge, Memory, research
-Wizard spell-casting

Will
- Stubbornness, ignore pain and torture
- Cleric and Sorcerer spell-casting
- Resistance to mental affects

Observation/Cognizance?/Perception?/Awareness?
- Spot clues, hidden doors, ambushes, enemy weaknesses, tracking, survival in the wild
- Damage with ranged weapons
- Initiative
- Druid/ranger spell-casting

--------
Intelligence may seem weak, but wizard spell-casting is valued very very highly as I explained in earlier posts. Wizards really pay for that yummy spell-casting!

Since I have only 5 ability scores instead of six, I'd have to rebalance point buy. Using 5E's point buy system (cap of 15, moving from 8 to 13 costs 1 point, moving to 14 and 15 needs 2 each), I'd like players to be able to reach 16 a primary  and one secondary stat. Most races have a +2 and a +1 ability score modifiers. So that's at least (1+1+1+1+1+2+2) + (1+1+1+1+1+2) =16 points used. Fiddling about with a 5E ability score calculator... about 24? Hrm. Let's keep that on hold for now.

Also, I'm inclined to uncouple hit points from class for this system since health is controlled by a strength. So I'd have every class use a d8 hit dice. Classes who don't invest in strength at all would start with 7HP, and classes which fully invest in strength start with 11HP. On level ups the 8 strength character would gain 5HP, and the 16 strength character would gain 8 HP.

Compare that with 5E's wizard and fighter both with 14 Con: 8HP vs 12HP. On level ups the 5E wizard with 14 Con gains 6HP while the fighter gains 8HP.

Like 5E where there is nothing preventing the wizard from investing in constitution, there's nothing in my system which prevents the wizard from investing in Strength. The classic wizard which all wizards in D&D are inspired from is Gandalf from Lord of the Rings. And he did use a sword. It even has a name: Glamdring.
This is no longer relevant since bonus health is no longer tied to ability scores at all. I'll leave the picture of Gandalf though because it's funny :)
-------

Gandalf, you're really a fighter with 18 Intelligence weren't you?

-------

This ability score system would completely change how much class features are valued in the classless system I'm developing. Players would not need to purchase health bonuses every level, since health would be dictated by your strength ability score. I'd have to rebalance monster damage to account for lower HP of characters too.
---------

Huh. That actually looks pretty tidy. It's a pity I can't really do away with the classic 6 ability scores! Sacred cow and all.

Update: I've changed my mind. I'm gonna use these ability scores instead.

5E D&D's armor inconsistencies

I earlier concluded that medium armor is valued more highly than light armor in 5th edition D&D. Well, that's actually not completely true.

Armor proficiencies are balanced really strangely in 5th edition D&D, but that is due to a number of complications such as:
a) Rogues and rangers need light armor to be equal in value to medium armor
b) Light armor users often increase their Dexterity score, but not always

But before we get into that, let's first look at the expected armor values of a level 1 character. At level 1, we expect the dexterity based classes to have at least 16 dexterity so they have a modifier of +3. Medium armor users will often have +2 dexterity modifier in order to max out their armor class while wearing medium armor. Heavy armor users don't care about dexterity. The elf is the most popular race for the wizard who wears no armor, and will almost inevitably have a +3 dex modifier at level 1.

So at level 1, we expect:
None: 10+3= 13 AC
Light armor (Leather): 11+3=14 AC
Medium armor (chain shirt): 14+2= 15 AC
Medium armor (Scale mail): 14+2=16 AC, disadvantage in stealth
Heavy armor (Chain mail): 16 AC, disadvantage in stealth

The medium armor and heavy armor users have the same armor class at level 1. I know this, but always thought it was more than a little odd. Looking at these numbers, it seems like the only real benefit heavy armor provides over medium armor is that the heavy armor users don't need to invest in dexterity at all. And it seems almost obvious that medium armor is better than light armor and should be valued more. Right? Not really.

What happens at level 2 or earlier throws this assumption off. Studded leather armor is really cheap, a minor 45gp. It's cheaper than some of the starting medium and heavy armors. In comparison, the next upgrades for medium armor, breastplate and half plate, each cost 400gp and 750gp (They'll afford it maybe level 4/5). The upgrade for heavy armor, splint mail, costs 200gp (they'll afford it around level 3). In comparison light armor users may afford studded leather even before they reach level 2 especially if the party pools their money.

So at level 2 or earlier, we expect:
None: 10+3= 13 AC
Light armor (Studded Leather): 12+3=15 AC
Medium armor (chain shirt): 14+2= 15 AC
Medium armor (Scale mail): 14+2=16 AC, disadvantage in stealth
Heavy armor (Chain mail): 16 AC, disadvantage in stealth

So very soon, light armor looks just as good as medium armor. Hrm.

Furthermore, that's not how it ends. By level 8, the PCs users can almost certainly afford the best (non-magical) armor money can buy. Dexterity-based characters will have pumped up their dexterity to the hard cap, gaining a +5 dex modifier. The wizard and sorceror will probably push up their spellcasting ability score instead so their dex mod remains at +3. By then however they are probably casting Mage Armor on themselves regularly since they have plenty of low level spells to spare.

So at level 8, we expect;
None: 13 OR 13+3= 16 (Mage armor)
Light (Studded leather): 12+5=17
Medium (Breastplate):  14+2=16
Medium (Half plate): 15+2=17, disadvantage in stealth
Heavy (Plate): 18, disadvantage in stealth

And now heavy armor and light armor have leaped ahead, leaving medium armor in the dust. What gives? In the long run, light armor is MORE valuable than medium armor as it flat out beats the armor class of the breastplate-wearing druid who also wants to sneak around. The developers are sending us pretty mixed signals here. Is medium armor better than light armor or equal in value?

Another odd duck is the Mage Armor caster at level 12/16 who decided to sink points into dexterity now that their spellcasting ability score is maxed. They'll end up with 8AC, the same as the heavy plate users. Now the mages are tanks! I don't think the system should encourage wizards to think they are frontliners (they still are not).

a) Rogues and rangers need light armor to be equal in value to medium armor

This end result we see at level 8 is probably caused by the poor rogue and ranger. These two classes use light armor usually, but by tradition they are meant to be in melee and therefore need better protection. So by level 8 they get as much AC as medium armor users while wearing light armor. So at least for the ranger and rogue, light armor has the same value as medium armor. The trouble is, the game is being awfully inconsistent. What about the rogue and ranger wading into melee at level 1? Rangers could choose to  use scale mail instead, but the poor rogue has an AC of 14 at level 1. Even stranger, why does the heavy armor user have the same AC as the medium armor user at level 1 but not at level 8?

Perhaps another part of the problem was with our initial assumptions. We had assumed non-dexterity based classes like druids and clerics are going to max out their AC while wearing medium armor at level 1 by pushing their AC to a +2 modifier. Let's instead make the unlikely assumption that medium armor users only marginally invest in dexterity for a +1 modifier. So at about level 1 we'd instead expect:

None: 10+3= 13 AC
Light armor (Leather): 11+3=14 AC
Light armor (Studded Leather): 12+3=15 AC
Medium armor (chain shirt): 14+1= 14 AC
Medium armor (Scale mail): 14+1=15 AC, disadvantage in stealth
Heavy armor (Chain mail): 16 AC, disadvantage in stealth

And suddenly these numbers look consistent with what happens at level 8.

b) Light armor users often increase their Dexterity score, but not always

What about the classes which have often have some dexterity but don't invest more until much later? Even though Warlocks and lore bards use light armor, they are likely to stay at 16 or even 14 dexterity for some time since they need to push up their charisma instead. HOWEVER, both these classes can have access to Mage Armor. It looks like they were expected to cast Mage Armor on themselves anyway.

Just WHO uses medium armor anyway? Druids, barbarians, valor bards and a few uncommon cleric domains. Sometimes the odd strength-based ranger. These characters would not be pushing up dexterity until much later either.

Anyway, if we look at characters who do not push up their dexterity at level 4 and 8, we'd instead see at level 8:

None: 13 OR 13+3= 16 (Mage armor)
Light (Studded leather): 12+3=15
Medium (Breastplate):  14+2=16
Medium (Half plate): 15+2=17, disadvantage in stealth
Heavy (Plate): 18, disadvantage in stealth

In this case medium armor looks more desirable compared to light armor, doesn't it?

----

I'd rather the differences between light, medium and heavy armor be a little more consistent from level 1 to level 20. So let's tweak the armor values.

And so!

Armor
Armor	Armor Class (AC)	Strength	Stealth	Start AC	EndAC
Light Armor
Leather	11 + Dex modifier	—	—	14
Studded leather	12 + Dex modifier	—	—		17
Medium Armor
Hide	12 + Dex modifier (max 2)	Str 9	—	14
Lamellar (leather)	13 + Dex modifier (max 2)	Str 9	—
Chain Shirt	14 + Dex modifier (max 2)	Str 9	—
Breastplate	15 + Dex modifier (max 2)	Str 9	—		17
Medium Armor (bulky)
Ring mail	14 + Dex modifier (max 1)	Str 11	Disadvntge	15
Lamellar (steel)	15 + Dex modifier (max 1)	Str 13	Disadvntge
Scale Mail	16 + Dex modifier (max 1)	Str 13	Disadvntge
Half Plate	17 + Dex modifier (max 1)	Str 13	Disadvntge		18
Heavy Armor
Chain Mail	16	Str 13	Disadvntge	16
Splint	17	Str 15	Disadvntge
Brigadine	18	Str 15	Disadvntge
Plate mail	19	Str 15	Disadvntge		19

Okay, looks good. I would probably extend those by 2 steps in order to keep up with high level Mage Armor casters. So we can extend those with exotic materials the players encounter in the higher levels such as mithral, ironwood, adamantine and dragon leather/scale.

So at least in our system, light armor has consistently the same value as medium armor.

And since our system is designed to have flexible flavor, all the armors listed above can be "re-flavored".
-"Can I start with bone armor instead of Hide? "
Sure, no problem. Same stats as hide, just more, well, bone-y.

-"Ah, I got an exotic chitin of an ankheg I want to make some good quality armor with."
Sure, it'll make a lightweight plate armor (Player is currently wearing splint mail. So best make it equivalent of brigadine)

-"They're wearing ceramic breastplates? Cool, I'll want to loot one of those later."
(It's the equivalent of scale mail maybe)

----

Let's go back to our Feature Point system. Conveniently, if we assign light and medium armor proficiencies a value of 1 FP and heavy armor proficiency a value of 2 FP, the fighter's features (not including second wind) at level 1 total up to a neat 8 FP. 2 (D10 hit dice) + 2 (Martial weapon prof) + 2 (Heavy armor prof) + 2 (Fighting style) =8. If we assign second wind a value of 2, the fighter's total FP value at level 1 is 10 FP.

I decided to assign Wizard spell-casting an even value of 8FP at level 1. Arcane recovery seems synonymous to second wind, so it costs 2FP. And hey! The wizard meets also uses 10 FP at level 1.

So PCs start with 10 FP at level 1, gaining 6FP every level-up. 10 is a nicer number than 12 anyway. :p

-------------

You may have noticed I also tweaked the strength requirements a bit. Simple reason: Armor proficiencies are way too easy to get in a classless system.  Even in 3rd and 5th edition, Heavy Armor proficiency is something that you can relatively easily by sinking a single level into the fighter class. In a classless system this issue is compounded manifold since players can spend a cheap cost of 2FP at any time to get access to the best armor. I'm not keen on reintroducing arcane spell failure. The better solution I think is to increase the Strength requirement for the bulky armors. The armors which are not bulky require some dex and are comparable to Mage Armor anyway (13+dex mod).

I will however bring back opportunity attacks vs ranged spells. After all, I want to encourage the mobile Rogue-type characters to sneak up on enemy mages in melee. So ranged spells once again provoke attacks of opportunity. Spells with a range of "self" like Burning Hands, Thunderwave, Expeditious Retreat and Shield are not affected.

In my current campaign, one of my players kept pushing his sorcerer into melee in order to cast magic missiles. A dubious tactic for sure. A good system should provide feedback immediately so the player realises he's playing badly sooner: opportunity attack. I'm leaning towards allowing the opportunity attack to force a concentration check if it hits and cause the spell to fizzle.

----------

Update: For comparison with 5E, here's a table of how light vs medium vs heavy armor in 3rd edition/Pathfinder

Light Armors
Armor	Cost	Armor/Shield Bonus	Maximum Dex Bonus	Dex 18(+4)	Dex 20(+4)	Dex 22 (+5)
Padded	5 gp	1	8	5	6	7
Leather	10 gp	2	6	6	7	8
Studded leather	25 gp	3	5	7	8	8
Chain shirt	100 gp	4	4	8	8	8
Medium Armors
Hide	15 gp	4	4	8	8	8
Scale mail	50 gp	5	3	8	8	8
Chainmail	150 gp	6	2	8	8	8
Breastplate	200 gp	6	3	9	9	9
Heavy Armors
Splint mail	200 gp	7	0	7	7	7
Banded mail	250 gp	7	1	8	8	8
Half-plate	600 gp	8	0	8	8	8
Full plate	1,500 gp	9	1	10	10	10

Keep in mind that at level 1 you start with about 150 gold and a lot of it needs to be spent on provisions and useful things other than armor and weapons. I'd say players should spend at most 100 gold, but 75 or lower is safer. Looking at these tables, it's pretty obvious that in Pathfinder medium is better than light, and heavy is better than medium (although you can't afford heavy at the start).

Values of basic class features (Part 2)

Part 1 is here.

So far, I've actually been simplifying how 5E D&D assigns features to classes for my own purposes. After all, in 5E and traditional D&D the role of the Rogue is the "skill monkey", and  these systems assign value to extra skills and expertise. If we look at all the 5E classes as a whole rather than one or two features, we could roughly summarize their features as follows:

Class	Figtr	Paldn	Rangr	Barb	Monk	Sorcr	Wizrd	Clerc	Druid	Rogue	Bard	Warlk
HD	2	2	2	3	1			1	1	1	1	1
Caster		2	2			10	10	5	5		5	5
Armour	3	3	2	2	2			2	2	1	1	1
Weapons	2	2	2	2	1			1	1	1	1	1
Skills			1							2	1
Tools					1				1	1	1
Martial Ability	3	1	1	3	3					2		3
Domain/pact boon								1
Expertise										2	2
Total Value	10	10	10	10	8	10	10	10	10	10	12	11

Well, that's nice for a bird's eye view but doesn't really help us so much since I've decided to separate the value of skills and expertise from the other class features. I just figured folks will be interested to see the work I put into looking at the various classes as a whole.

Yes, the Monk is that bad and the Bard is that good. :p

--------

Let's put that bird's eye view aside and go back to the Feature Point (FP) system we were designing in Part 1. Our target is to figure out the value 5E places on Sneak Attack. Sneak Attack gives an extra 1d6 damage upon meeting the conditions, which is an average of 3.5 damage. Seeing as how every party should have a warrior who will stand next to an enemy, the conditions for sneak attack really are not difficult to meet. So sneak attack's value should be no less than 3FP.

If we apply the same process as we did in Part 1 to the Rogue, we'll see that the Rogue gets simple weapon + light armor + d8 hit dice + expertise + 2 extra skills + sneak attack (we'll regard Thieves’ Cant as fluff with no FP value). At least we know the value of the first three: 1+1+1=3, but we don't have a value for expertise + 2 extra skills + sneak attack. Somehow those add up to about 9 FP in our system. Expertise should have at least the same value as the 2 extra skill points if not more since expertise gives double proficiency bonus in two skills.

So it could be:
a) Expertise = 3, 2 skills =3, sneak attack =3
b) Expertise = 2, 2 skills = 2, sneak attack = 5
c) Expertise = 3, 2 skills =2, sneak attack =4
d) Expertise =1, 2 skills =1, sneak attack = 7 (highly doubtful)

So according to our weightage system, 5E assigns a value of about 3 to 5 FP for sneak attack. I'm leaning towards 3 or 4 FP. In our system, it's likely we need to give the rogue-ish character concepts a bit of a hand since we aren't assigning extra skills/expertise as a class feature. If we bump up sneak attack from d6 to d8, we should similarly bump up it's cost to 4 to 6 FP (I'm leaning towards 4 to 5).

---

Notice I keep saying how 5E assigns value to various features, not how a classless system should do so? Our estimate on how 5E assigns values to various class features is a good place to start, but we can fiddle with the numbers to better suit our system. We could for example decide to assign a value of 8 or 10 to wizard spellcasting instead for 9 because we really really want an even number. Why do we want an even number? For one, a classless system really benefits from having half wizard spell-casting progression paths. For example, the Warlock spell progression. There are a lot of folks who'll want to build a character with limited access to wizard spells, so to accommodate them there should be limited wizard spell-casting options. Half of 10 is 5.

Also, we have to consider what happens when the PC reaches level 2.

-----

Let's look at what the fighter gets at level 2 in 5E. From his class features he gets 6 more hit points and action surge. The wizard gets 4 more hit points, one more level 1 wizard spell slot, and arcane tradition. So does that mean 2 more hit points and action surge is equal in value to an extra spell slot and arcane tradition? Not really. The fighter is in fact investing towards his extra attack which comes online at level 5, 11 and 20.

Taking 5E's level by level progression system really doesn't work for a classless system. To understand 5th edition's level progression, we really need to look at 3rd edition which introduced the concept of taking an individual level of a class as a form of multi-classing. Back in 3rd edition, every level of Fighter/Paladin/Ranger/Barbarian contributed to a +1 bonus to attack (called a base attack bonus). Once you hit +6 base attack bonus, you got an extra attack at +1 base attack bonus. This gave made every level of these warrior classes more meaningful, so players had reason to invest in pure warrior classes.

5E however did away with the base attack bonus system due to the principle of bounded accuracy. Quite a brilliant bit of design there, IMO. Instead, players need to invest in levels of a specific warrior class in order to get those much coveted extra attacks, which instead hit for full damage. Extra attacks from different warrior class in 5E (fighter/paladin, ranger, barbarian) do NOT stack with each other.

That doesn't really work for a classless system though, because there isn't a class to invest levels in. We're using a Feature Points system to buy features, so we want warrior classes to have something to invest their feature points in every level rather than something they only get after 5 levels. Warriors such as the fighter need to improve their damage output as they level up, at least eventually.

If we want to stick to the principle of bounded accuracy (We should. It's a good principle), there are not many options. Every level, warriors can invest their FP in increased damage with their weapons. In order to maintain the value of martial weapons vs simple weapons, how much FP they can invest and how much damage bonuses they can get should depend on their weapon proficiency.

And so we could use something which looks like this:

Feature	FP cost	Requirement	Benefit
Martial weapon proficiency	2	-	Proficiency in martial weapons
Martial weapon proficiency 2	2	char level 2	Damage + 2 (+3 for twohanded)
Martial weapon proficiency 3	2	char level 3	Damage + 2 (+3 for twohanded)
Martial weapon proficiency 4	2	char level 4	Damage + 2 (+3 for twohanded)
Martial weapon proficiency 5	2	char level 5	2x Damage dice, 1 Cleave per round
Martial weapon proficiency 6	2	char level 6	Damage + 2 (+3 for twohanded)
Martial weapon proficiency 7	2	char level 7	Damage + 2 (+3 for twohanded)
Martial weapon proficiency 8	2	char level 8	Damage + 2 (+3 for twohanded)
Martial weapon proficiency 9	2	char level 9	Damage + 2 (+3 for twohanded)
Martial weapon proficiency 10	2	char level 10	3x Damage dice, 2 Cleaves per round
Martial weapon proficiency 11	2	char level 11	Damage + 2 (+3 for twohanded)
Martial weapon proficiency 12	2	char level 12	Damage + 2 (+3 for twohanded)
Martial weapon proficiency 13	2	char level 13	Damage + 2 (+3 for twohanded)
Martial weapon proficiency 14	2	char level 14	Damage + 2 (+3 for twohanded)
Martial weapon proficiency 15	2	char level 15	4x Damage dice, 3 Cleaves per round
Martial weapon proficiency 16	2	char level 16	Damage + 2 (+3 for twohanded)
Martial weapon proficiency 17	2	char level 17	Damage + 2 (+3 for twohanded)
Martial weapon proficiency 18	2	char level 18	Damage + 2 (+3 for twohanded)
Martial weapon proficiency 19	2	char level 19	Damage + 2 (+3 for twohanded)
Martial weapon proficiency 20	2	char level 20	5x Damage dice, no cleave limit

And for simple weapons:

Name	FP cost	Requirement	Benefit
Simple weapon proficiency	1	-	Proficiency in simple weapons
Simple weapon proficiency 2	1	char level 2	Damage + 1 (+2 for twohanded)
Simple weapon proficiency 3	1	char level 3	Damage + 1 (+2 for twohanded)
Simple weapon proficiency 4	1	char level 4	Damage + 1 (+2 for twohanded)
Simple weapon proficiency 5	1	char level 5	2x Damage dice, 1 Cleave per round
Simple weapon proficiency 6	1	char level 6	Damage + 1 (+2 for twohanded)
Simple weapon proficiency 7	1	char level 7	Damage + 1 (+2 for twohanded)
Simple weapon proficiency 8	1	char level 8	Damage + 1 (+2 for twohanded)
Simple weapon proficiency 9	1	char level 9	Damage + 1 (+2 for twohanded)
Simple weapon proficiency 10	1	char level 10	3x Damage dice
Simple weapon proficiency 11	1	char level 11	Damage + 1 (+2 for twohanded)
Simple weapon proficiency 12	1	char level 12	Damage + 1 (+2 for twohanded)
Simple weapon proficiency 13	1	char level 13	Damage + 1 (+2 for twohanded)
Simple weapon proficiency 14	1	char level 14	Damage + 1 (+2 for twohanded)
Simple weapon proficiency 15	1	char level 15	4x Damage dice
Simple weapon proficiency 16	1	char level 16	Damage + 1 (+2 for twohanded)
Simple weapon proficiency 17	1	char level 17	Damage + 1 (+2 for twohanded)
Simple weapon proficiency 18	1	char level 18	Damage + 1 (+2 for twohanded)
Simple weapon proficiency 19	1	char level 19	Damage + 1 (+2 for twohanded)
Simple weapon proficiency 20	1	char level 20	5x Damage dice

Phew. But we're not nearly done! We need to calculate how much FP the fighter uses every level. The fighter now gets 2 more hit points than the lowly wizard every level, so that's 2 FP. He invests in Martial Weapon proficiency for the damage bonus every level, so that's another 2 FP. We want to have some additional FP for the Fighter to invest in other fun features. Say another 2 FP. Altogether a PC should gain 6FP every level.

But the wizard's spell progression costs 8 to 10 FP? Well, no it doesn't after level 1. Think about it. At level 1, the wizard spends 8 to 10 FP to get access to wizard spells and gains 2 level 1 spell slots. At level 2, the wizard the wizard invests into wizard spellcasting and gets 1 more spell slot. Should 1 more level 1 spell slot cost the same amount of FP as 2 level 1 spell slots at level 1? Players will correctly value it at half the amount of FP. If we value wizard spell progression at level 1 as 8FP and 4FP every level thereafter, it fits into our model quite well since we want to have a bit left over for fun bonus features. (6FP per level - 4FP leaves 2 FP per level)

And so:

Name	FP cost	Requirement	Benefit
Wizard spell-casting 1	8	-	(see Full caster spell progression table)
Wizard spell-casting 2	4	char level 2	"
Wizard spell-casting 3	4	char level 3	"
Wizard spell-casting 4	4	char level 4	"
Wizard spell-casting 5	4	char level 5	"

And so on so forth.

Values of basic class features (Part 1)

Using the Big Four (Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric) of 5th edition D&D as our base, let's assign values to each of the basic features of each class. That way we can put a price for each feature for our classless system. It's easiest to compare the Fighter vs the Wizard for this purpose.

The Fighter has Heavy armor proficiency (including shields), Martial weapon proficiency, d10 hit dice, a fighting style, and second wind.
The Wizard has no armor proficiency (no shields), proficiency with daggers, darts, slings, quarterstaffs, and light crossbows, d6 hit dice, and spell casting and arcane recovery.

The Wizard has the very worst armor proficiency, weapon proficiency and hit dice in the genre; every edition of D&D, Pathfinder, 13th Age, all of them. Since you can't go lower the the wizard for these 3 features, it's safe to say these are the base features which every class has and assign a value of zero to each. So no armor proficiencies, base weapon proficiency (dagger, dart, sling, quarterstaff, light crossbow), and d6 hit dice have a value of zero. Also, wizards have access to wizard spell-casting.

Conversely, the Fighter has always had the very best armor proficiency (which seems to include shields), weapon proficiency and hit dice (other than the barbarian) in every edition of D&D. In most editions other than 5th, the fighter is also more accurate with weapons than the wizard at level 1 (+1 to hit).

Extra features like fighting styles, second wind or arcane recovery are less consistent between editions.

In other words, wizard spell-casting is equal in value to best armor proficiency, weapon proficiency and hit dice (and maybe another +1 to hit). Yikes! Wizards pay the sky and the moon to cast their wizard spells!

Let's assign the values for these basic features a PC starts with at level 1.

Weapon proficiency is valued as:
Base (dagger, dart, sling, quarterstaff, light crossbow): 0
Simple: 1
Martial: 2

Armor proficiency is valued as:
None: 0
Light: 1
Medium: 2
Heavy: 3

Or does light armor have the same value as medium armor in 5th edition? At level 1 at least, it seems like PCs with light armor (11+3=14) will have significantly poorer armor class (AC) than PCs with medium armor (14+2=16). Furthermore, heavy armor proficiency seems to include medium and light, and medium armor prof seems to include light armor proficiency. So let's value medium armor higher than light for now.

Hit dice are valued as:
d6: 0
d8: 1
d10: 2


So Wizard spellc-asting is valued at 2+3+2=7, right? Well, maybe. But in editions other than 5E the Fighter also gets +1 to hit. In 5th edition, the wizard gets Arcane Recovery but the fighter gets Second Wind AND a Fighting style. Assuming Arcane recovery and Second Wind have the same value, then it seems like 5E's fighting styles is this edition's replacement for the normal +1 bonus to hit. After all, 5th edition adheres to the principle of bounded accuracy.

Let's look at the 5E's Fighting styles. We have:
Archery: +2 bonus to Attack rolls
Defense: +1 bonus to AC.
Dueling: +2 bonus to Damage Rolls
Great Weapon Fighting: Reroll 1 or 2 on a damage die
Protection: Impose disadvantage on the Attack roll.
Two-Weapon Fighting: Add your ability modifier to damage

The easiest two to bring up are the +2 bonus to attack rolls and the +2 bonus to damage rolls. Each improvement in weapon proficiency (base to simple to martial) improves average damage by 1 point. Similarly, at level 1, each +1 bonus to attack rolls improve average damage by about 1 point assuming around 50% base chance to hit the target. Since these Archery and Dueling give a +2 bonus to attack and damage each, we know that the Fighting style has the same value as Martial weapon proficiency, 2.

BUT WAIT. A +1 improvement to AC (Defense fighting style) has the same value as a +2 improvement to attack (archery) or +2 to damage (Dueling)! 5E isn't very consistent with this actually. Shields improve AC by +2, but the improvement in average damage of a greatsword (2d6; 3.5+3.5=7) over a longsword (1d8; 4.5) is only 2.5, not 4. Furthermore, the Great weapon fighting style only improves average damage by about 1.33 . If you compare a fighter with a greatsword using the GWF style with a fighter using a longsword+shield with the defense fighting style, the greatsword fighter does about 50% more damage but the sword+shield fighter has about 50% more effective health. Mathematically a +1 AC improvement has about the same value as a +1 damage or +1 bonus to hit at level 1. So let's just stick with that for now.

So wizard spell-casting in 5th edition is valued at 2+3+2+2=9 based on our value system. Ick, 9 isn't a very nice number. Because we're about to compare these values to the cleric.

The cleric is very clearly a mix between the fighter and the wizard as far as these features go in this edition. In 5E, the cleric has simple weapon proficiency, medium armor proficiency, a d8 hit dice, cleric spell-casting, and a domain feature. Putting aside the domain feature (which seems to match the second wind and arcane recovery), simple weapon proficiency + medium armor proficiency+ d8 hit dice; 1+2+1=4. So cleric spell-casting is worth the leftover... 9-4= 5. Cleric spell-casting is worth 5, about half of that of wizard spell-casting.

In other editions than 5E, clerics have heavy armor proficiency. In fact in 5E, more than half of cleric domains have heavy armor proficiency, in particular the ever popular life cleric has heavy armor proficiency. It may be more accurate to say that clerics by default have heavy armor proficiency. This would slightly reduce our estimate of the value of cleric spell-casting from 5 to 4. Still about half of that of wizard spell-casting.

(Man, clerics have it good in every edition of the game. They were considered Tier 1 in 3rd edition, and in 5th edition they are really strong at level 1. Cleric spells are worth so much more than half that of wizard spells surely. I guess the game wants to encourage players to use support-based classes)

Anyway, for now we can say that the basic features in 5E are;-

Weapon proficiency
Base: 0
Simple: 1
Martial: 2

Armor proficiency
None: 0
Light: 1
Medium: 2
Heavy: 3

Hit dice
d6: 0
d8: 1
d10: 2

Spell-casting
Wizard: 9
Cleric: 4 or 5

and
Fighting Style: 2

Depending on how much value we assign the "bonus" features (arcane recovery, second wind, domain), we can say the total value classes have to work with totals up to about 10-12.

We'll call these values FEATURE POINTS (FP). So let's say a PC starts with a total of 12FP in 5th edition D&D which he can spend on starting features such as hit dice, proficiencies or spellcasting and one "bonus" feature. We don't have to follow these exactly for our own system if we fiddle with the benefits of each feature (say, how how much extra AC heavy armor grants over medium armor).

No designated "Skill Monkey"

As I talked about it the last blog post, I'm keen that the design of the game should encourage all players to try and contribute in non-combat scenarios. This bit isn't so hard, but doing so has some more complicated consequences for the design of the Rogue. Let's focus on how to encourage all players to contribute with their skills in non-combat scenarios.

Non-combat encounters in D&D are resolved through "skills"; in 5E these are Acrobatics, Animal Handling, Arcana, Athletics, Deception, History, Insight, Intimidation, Investigation, Medicine, Nature, Perception, Performance, Persuasion, Religion, Sleight of Hand, Stealth, and Survival. You roll a dice, add your proficiency if you are trained in the releavnt skill as well as the relevant ability score modifier (egs. Charisma), and hope to beat the difficulty check set by the Dungeon Master. Rogue's in 5E not only have training in the most skills (four), but also have Expertise in two which grants doubled proficiency bonus. The poor fighter has training in 2 skills.

Of course, even without the right skills all players can contribute IDEAS out of character or remind their fellow players to say certain key points, and in that way contribute to non-combat encounters and conversations. I should probably remind players that they can always do that even when their character's skills aren't relevant to the situation. Outside of that though, it's probably best if the system doesn't consciously reduce the number of skills non-Rogues have to contribute. So the fix is fairly simple: Make more skills available to non-Rogues, either through a) training or through b) ability scores.

a) One could simply consider giving the non-Rogues training in more skills (i.e. more skill proficiencies). That would work. Since I'm working on a classless system anyway, it'd be best to keep prowess in skills separate from combat abilities anyway and all characters would have training in the same number of skills. But 13th age goes a step further with their backgrounds system: basically, instead of ticking boxes in a laundry list of skills, the player makes up a background that describes their character which justifies what sort of skills she has. A background like "street rat of Agrabah" could mean a whole host of skills relevant to escape, stealing, lying and stealth. I found this system extremely compelling when I applied it to my own paladin in 13th age as the mere act of thinking through the relevant background breathed life and character into my otherwise boring but mechanically competent paladin. The flexible background system used by 13th age is especially appropriate for this classless system since it encourages players flesh out really unique character concepts.

To finish it up, let's borrow from another well thought out system: Numenera. In Numenera, player characters can be quickly summed up as an (adjective) (noun) who (verb). Try it, it's quick and fun! Basically we're sort of borrowing the (verb) here. Let's have every PC be especially good at something: Expertise in one skill as well. So the PC could have a background which dictates what sort of skills the character has mastered, but are also talented at one skill in particular. What talent can be pretty flexible, such as "working with artifacts" or "finding weaknesses" or "cooking" or whatever players can think of.

b) The ability scores is another issue. There are six ability scores in D&D; Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma. Of these six, strength and constitution very rarely play a role outside of combat. No matter how many skills or what backgrounds players think of, if their PC's ability scores are only focused on strength and constitution they're going to have a problem contributing (*cough barbarians cough*).  Whatever it is, we need to encourage players to invest in ability scores OTHER than strength and constitution. Fortunately 5E isn't so bad with this nowadays, since with point buy players cannot sink all their points into a single ability score as much as it maxes out at 15. Players who max out their strength and constitution to meaningful levels (14 or 16 with racial bonuses) will have plenty left over for another ability score or two. Coupled with 13th age's flexible background system, players who plan their background to match their tertiary ability scores should have plenty of opportunities to contribute outside of combat. I should probably advise players to play to their strengths in that manner.

There are other things we can do to help player characters contribute outside of combat such as social connections where the PC is considered proficient when conversing with a specific groups of people. Interaction with NPCs features often enough in RPGs that it is considered one of the three pillars of adventuring in 5E, so extra care should be taken in the design to allow all PCs to interact meaningfully with NPCs, at least sometimes.

Unfortunately, there is one consequence of this design which clashes with traditional D&D design. What role do Rogue-ish concepts characters play if everyone is good at skills? Probably not even BETTER at skills. I think it's worthwhile trying to flesh out a solid role for rogue-ish flavored characters to play on the battlefield that are effective and desirable to the party. I'm not entirely sure yet, but I'm leaning towards focusing on providing flexibility on the combat and mobility, as opposed to straight out pure dishing out of damage and dealing damage of warriors. Or maybe just go with 4E strikers aka Damage per Round focused glass cannons. Strikers in concept clash with traditional D&D design since the fighters are both defenders AND strikers of 4E rolled into one, so I'm leaning towards more flexibility/mobility which allows for better target prioritization. I suspect both approaches can exist side by side though. We'll see.

The Big Four (or is it Big Three?)

Building an RPG system based on the Dungeons and Dragons Systems Reference Documents is pretty tricky. Legal issues aside (fortunately the 3rd edition has an open SRD which can be used), in order to make a classless medieval fantasy system based the Dungeons and Dragons open Systems Reference Documents, a good understanding of how the classes are balanced and function is needed. Especially the Big Four: Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric. These classes form the basis of every other class which is designed after.

Or is it the Big Three?

Monte Cook seems to think so. Looking at Monte Cook's Numenera, 3 classes are available, the Glaive, Jack and Nano.  Each of these are inspired by the Fighter, Rogue and Wizard specifically.  The Fighter/Glaive is the warrior who dishes out and take the most punishment on the field of battle. The Rogue/Jack has a variety of useful skills which are important in exploration, subterfuge and other challenges outside of battle (some folks use the term "Skill Monkey"). The Wizard/Nano has a lot of limited use 'magic' which provides unique effects both in and out of battle. Essentially, the wizard is the character who has big powers with limited uses, thus providing bursts of utility.

Monte Cook understands 3rd edition D&D better than I do, for sure. He was one of the writers who wrote it, after all!

Interesting fact 1: not only did the Fighter always have the best access to armor and arms, but she also had the best saving throws too back in early editions (original and 2nd edition). Nowadays the rogue has better dex/reflex saves and the cleric better will saves, but back then the Fighter had all the best saves. The fighter really was meant to be the best in battle!

So the Cleric is really a mix between the Fighter and the Wizard, with a focus on support spells such as healing and buffs instead of damage and control. The cleric certainly has carved out his own niche as a healer and the designated party support, but in many ways the cleric is the original "gish" or fighter-mage hybrid.

Interesting fact 2: In 3rd edition D&D, the Rogue had only a d6 hit dice, whereas the cleric has a d8. The cleric was also better armored and armed, and generally better in battle than the poor Rogue.

So we should use these three classes: Fighter, Rogue and Wizard (and maybe cleric) as the base for classless system right? Warrior, Skill monkey, and Limited-use magic-user?

Well, maybe not. I have issues with assigning one character the role of "skill monkey".

Have you ever seen a tabletop session where the player controlling the fighter or barbarian is sitting around looking really bored while the rest of the players is engaged in non-combat activities? Such as talking to NPCs, figuring out a puzzle, maneuvering around the environment? Well, the game is specifically designed to give certain character classes little in the way of contributing during the exploration and interaction phases of the game. The biggest sinner in 5E is the frenzied barbarian, who becomes exhausted and thus has disadvantage on ability checks after going into a frenzy. He's specifically designed to be useless outside of combat!

I'll touch on this more in a blog post on "Sharing the limelight", but I think all player should be encouraged by the system to be alert and trying to find ways to contribute outside of combat. After all, modern D&D design allows all classes to contribute in combat. Do you remember what wizards were like in earlier editions when they didn't have at-will cantrips and a measly d4 hit dice? Wizards were essentially useless when they ran out of spells. If you had 7 combat encounters per day, most of the battles the wizard would be twiddling their thumbs or throwing inaccurate d4 darts. DARTS.

Introduction: Freedom of character concept

Hey there! This is Ban, also known as MrBunnyBan. This is a development blog for the medieval fantasy RPG system I'm trying to make, tentatively named Freedom Fantasy. The system is heavily inspired by Dungeons & Dragons (3E and 5E specifically), Pathfinder and 13th age. What I hope will set it apart is that it is a classless system where you pick and choose exactly which features you want for your character and you'd have a great deal of freedom in defining both the mechanical abilities of the character and the flavor of the character.

Currently in 5th Edition D&D, you are limited to 12 character classes including the classic Big 4 (Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric) as well as the Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, Warlock. The Psion hasn't made it to 5E yet, and the Artificer and Mystic are still in the Unearthed Arcana (i.e. still in development). The list of playable races is much longer, including the classics of elf, dwarf, halfing, half-elf, half-orc and of course human.

But what if I want to play a flame-breathing three-headed hell hound? Her main feature would be biting with all three heads, pouncing, and breathing fire, but lacks opposable thumbs. Three headed Hell hound isn't one of the available races.

How about a dhampir closely inspired by Alucard from the Castlevania series? Sure she can wield a sword, but turning into a wolf/bat/mist form and feeding of blood would be must-have features. Pretty tricky to build in the context of 5th edition D&D.

Another idea I have is a reject of the wizard college who only uses the Mage Hand spell to telekinetically move things around, but does it very very well. She has 5 longswords sheathed on her back. When combat starts all 5 are drawn by Mage Hand and orbit around her, ready to be flung out at enemies who dare cross her path. (I've got to commission art for this.)

As I see it, the big advantage of tabletop role playing games is the flexibility for custom character concepts, limited only by your imagination. So why limit yourself to pre-defined character classes and races made by someone else?

It's perfectly possible to design such a system. This is the dream, the quest. Please follow me on this quest to create a flexible RPG system that allows players' imaginations to explode.