Alternate Health System for d20 Martial Arts

[Nathan W]

Hey all, this is my first post.

Short Intro of Me: Hey, my name's Nathan, since people seem to like being on a first name basis here. I've been playing (and mostly GMing) RPGs for over 10 years, but I'll admit that my experience is limited to only three RPing groups and about a half-dozen games/systems. My first introduction to pen-and-paper/table-top RPing was the Star Wars d20 RPG. For as long as I've been playing RPGs I've been toying around with designing them (along with various card and board games), but I've never really brought an RPG into a state where I'd consider it "finished". My mind tends to wander, so I'm usually working on multiple games at once. I find that this actually helps with my creative process because as I develop new mechanics for one game they give me a clearer understanding of, and new ideas for, my other projects. I just discovered the Forge about a week ago and love what I've seen. Rather than bombard you fine people with my  numerous ideas, I'll just ask your opinion on one.


My Idea: I'm working on an RPG that attempts to simulate the kind of low-fantasy, martial arts action of movies such as "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon", "Hero", "House of Flying Daggers", "Final Fantasy 7: Advent Children", etc. (admittedly, FF7:AC is a bit different from those others but it shares some similarities)

For those who may not be familiar with those titles, some of the key elements I'm looking for are these:
1. Otherwise ordinary, or non-magical, heroes defy the laws of physics. They run up walls, skip across water, and even fly as they do battle.
2. Master fighters are so good that lesser fighters can't even land a blow on them, and other masters can only land a blow on them rarely.
3. In conjunction with point #2, when someone does land a blow with a "lethal" weapon (sword, as opposed to fist) it is almost always a killing blow.
4. The exception to point #3 is when it is appropriately dramatic for the wounded hero to get back up and continue fighting.

Taking these points, and a few others, into consideration, I've decided that so far I think this kind of gaming experience could be served well enough by the d20 system with only a few modifications.

This is how I am planing on addressing each point so far:
1. Easy enough through the use of Feats, "Spells", etc. Doesn't really need any special mechanics.
2. I believe this could be achieved by simply adjusting how a character's Defense (AC) is calculated so that it ends up being about 150%-200% normal.
3. Characters will still have some form of Hit Points, but these will only come into play when hit by a "non-lethal" weapon such as a club or a fist. When Hit Points are reduced to 0 a character simply falls unconscious. When hit by a "lethal" weapon, on the other hand, characters will be automatically reduced to an "unconscious and dying" status. Unless they receive immediate medical aid they will be dead in a short period of time.
4. Since characters being able to survive a hit from a "lethal" weapon only happens when "dramatically appropriate", rather than being the norm, this will be accomplished by spending an Effort Point. Effort Points will be special points that characters have and use to accomplish dramatic feats, such as special attacks and maneuvers, etc. The number of Effort Points a character has will most likely be based on their level. This will not be a large number, and during the course of a battle some may be expended on other things. NPC "mob" characters will likely have no Effort Points so that heroes can quickly dispatch large numbers of inferior warriors. When a character takes a hit from a "lethal" weapon they may spend an Effort Point to treat it as a hit from a "non-lethal" weapon.

Now...

Does any of that make sense? Do I need to clarify further? Any thoughts, suggestions, or ideas?

Thanks in advance for your feedback.

[Callan S.]

Hi Nathan, welcome to the forge!

Have you considered the rules referencing/fun content ratio, with fighting inferior warriors? If the result is fairly predictable, refering to the rules over and over will be alot of work for a predictable result (even if it's simple rules).

In movies, the hero doesn't fight inferior warriors because that's a required part of a movie. It's the authors way of illustrating the hero's importance via how much ass they can kick! The important part is to illustrate how bad ass the hero is (note, while you might get more inferior warrior fights latter in a movie, typically this is because the hero's power has scaled up).

In a table top format, this could be a big reveal on the players part, unknown to any other player or GM. The player perhaps generates a number based on his character and a randomised boost. He calculates how much ass he could kick, then narrates those fights very, very rapidly (just like the movies do it - the less meaningful the fight, the faster it occurs)

Just some ideas about fun over time ratios. What are you actually working on - I'm just going to seem obtrusive with my ideas unless you ask me for help with something.

[BigElvis]

I am going to be more obtrusive and say that I think you should try to create your own system from scratch instead.

It seems you have a pretty good idea about what theme you want. Try to also focus on what kind of gameplay you want happening at the table.

You might also think about how you could create mechanics that deal with the moral and social issues that the movies you listed deal with, for instance CTHD is a movie about honor, ambition, freedom and love (in my interpretation).

Have you read the articles in the articles section - you will find it in the upper right corner of the page. If not doing so is a good idea - start with system does matter by ron edwards then maybe the different gns articles and the fantasy heartbreaker.

[Nathan W]

Thank you both for your quick responses!

Have you considered the rules referencing/fun content ratio, with fighting inferior warriors? If the result is fairly predictable, refering to the rules over and over will be alot of work for a predictable result (even if it's simple rules).

In movies, the hero doesn't fight inferior warriors because that's a required part of a movie. It's the authors way of illustrating the hero's importance via how much ass they can kick! The important part is to illustrate how bad ass the hero is (note, while you might get more inferior warrior fights latter in a movie, typically this is because the hero's power has scaled up).

I agree with your summation. In the movies, when the heroes fight inferior warriors it is mainly with the purpose of showing just how awesome they are, and therefore establishing their worth as a fighter. I don't see anything wrong with letting the players have their characters show off a bit for an ego boost. Admittedly though, if this was the primary focus of the game it could get monotonous because the players wouldn't feel like they were really being challenged.

I also agree that these encounters should be fast paced and exciting. I believe that the ability to perform an instant kill when using a "lethal" weapon will help to keep these encounters simple and avoid a lot of bookkeeping. In addition, I'm considering ways of changing how multiple attacks work. In d20 characters get iterative attacks as their BAB rises. Instead, I'm thinking of allowing characters to make only one attack per turn, but they can target multiple enemies with that single attack if those opponents are considerably weaker than them self. So an accomplished fighter may be able to take out multiple enemies with a single attack roll. Hopefully those ideas will make such encounters quick and relatively painless (at least rules-wise). If you have any more ideas or suggestions in this regard I am grateful for them.

I am going to be more obtrusive and say that I think you should try to create your own system from scratch instead.

I'm working on designing my own system for a couple of my other projects, and there are definitely some advantages to this. So far though I haven't seen how this game really needs anything more than a revamping of d20 to give me everything I want out of it. I am always open to new ideas though, so if you have a good argument for why d20 might not be the best system for this kind of game feel free to offer your advice. Do you have experience with another system that might support this kind of play experience better?

I find that a lot of people seem to dislike d20 due to it's abundance of complicated rules that tend to slow down play. I tend to agree with this at parts. Have you read through the version of d20 presented in the Star Wars Saga Edition rulebook? I've found it to be a very streamlined version of the rules. While I'd be working with the standard SRD I figure I'll be doing some streamlining myself.

You might also think about how you could create mechanics that deal with the moral and social issues that the movies you listed deal with, for instance CTHD is a movie about honor, ambition, freedom and love (in my interpretation).

I think that role-playing those aspects of the story is very important to the kind of play experience I want to create. While the movies I listed are mostly Chinese, the social and political aspects of my setting are more akin to those of feudal Japan. Along those lines, a samurai-like class of people will figure prominently along with their bushido-like code of conduct. I've begun to work on some mechanics to handle such concepts as honor and duty, but these are only in their earliest stages - like most of the project.

Have you read the articles in the articles section - you will find it in the upper right corner of the page. If not doing so is a good idea - start with system does matter by ron edwards then maybe the different gns articles and the fantasy heartbreaker.

I've read a few of them, and I've found them very helpful. I'll try to read more of them as I have time, especially the ones you mentioned.

What are you actually working on - I'm just going to seem obtrusive with my ideas unless you ask me for help with something.

Right now I'm primarily interested in getting the combat/damage system right for the kind of action seen in the movies. I think I outlined my ideas and goals in that regard well enough in my first post. If not, feel free to ask more questions. I guess what I'm really looking for at the moment is some feedback on rather or not my alterations to the d20 system as I've explained them will contribute to the kind of play experience I'm after, and rather or not they would cause any undesirable side effects. Any other comments are, of course, also welcome.

Thanks again!

[Simon C]

Hi, I think what you're doing is a really neat idea, and absolutely possible with the d20 system.  Don't worry too much about getting deep into theory, since I think with a good understanding of d20 and a strong idea of the play experience you want, you should have all the tools you need.

Now I'd like to talk about some specific points:

Dramatically raising AC:  This, in my opinion, isn't such a good idea.  The "whiff" factor (the degree to which combat consists of rolling and missing) is already pretty high in d20, and making it higher isn't going to make the game more fun, just more frustrating.  Also, high defences cap out pretty quickly when you need a 20 to hit.  I think it might be better to go with some kind of "defence point" system, where being attacked drains your defence points every round.  This could be as simple as changing how you describe hit points,  so losing hit points is described as near misses and heroic jumping, or blows with fists and feet, rather than with weapons, rather than actual damage)  When someone finally does drop below zero HP, you can describe actual physical damage, a telling blow with a weapon. 

Killing truely awesome numbers of dudes:  You want to have those fights where you're wading through hordes of enemies, but rolling to hit and injure every one takes hours.  No fun.  One thing you might consider is using the rules for "swarms" from D&D, and just changing the scale.  Rather than a 10' by 10' swarm of spiders, it's a 10 yard by 10 yard swarm of warriors.  In fights of this scale, just multiply the movement of the heroes by the increase in the scale of the fight.  So, rather than fighting on a 5 foot grid where a swarm takes up four squares, you're fighting on a 5 yard (or 10 yard) grid, and the horde of enemy soldiers takes up four squares.  The cool thing about this is you really get a sense of your hero charging around amongst big groups of enemies.  It also means you can have fights against other combat masters, amongst their guards, without using different rules for each. 

Effort Points:  Here's where you have a big chance to do some really interesting things.  How characters gain effort points, and what they can be spent to achieve, will have a huge effect on your game.  Look out though, because I've found that in actual play, players often end up not using these things except for when they're really unavoidable.  You might check out "Raising the Stakes", a D&D hack by Ryan Stoughton, that does some interesting things with stake setting and character death.  It could be what you're after.

[Nathan W]

Thanks Simon C. for all the insights!

The "whiff" factor (the degree to which combat consists of rolling and missing) is already pretty high in d20, and making it higher isn't going to make the game more fun, just more frustrating. Also, high defences cap out pretty quickly when you need a 20 to hit.

Thanks for pointing this out to me. You hit the nail on the head. I had acknowledged to myself that duels might tend to drag on with neither opponent scoring a hit for a very long time, but I was OK with that since that's what we see in the movies. It hadn't really occurred to me that this would get frustrating as players want to see that their efforts aren't being wasted while they wait for that lucky natural 20.

I think it might be better to go with some kind of "defence point" system, where being attacked drains your defence points every round.  This could be as simple as changing how you describe hit points,  so losing hit points is described as near misses and heroic jumping, or blows with fists and feet, rather than with weapons, rather than actual damage)  When someone finally does drop below zero HP, you can describe actual physical damage, a telling blow with a weapon.

I like the notion of this idea. However, I think that rather than simply telling players, "no, you weren't actually hit, you parried" a few rules tweaks might be made to reinforce this idea. First I'd change the expression to something like "endurance" to show that your character is getting worn down from the constant back and forth rather than actually taking damage. More importantly, I'd allow a player to declare whether their character is "dodging" or "parrying" for a round. Characters would have special moves, possibly represented by Feats, that would trigger when they successfully dodge or parry. In other words: yes you got "hit" and you lost "endurance", but since you actually parried the attack you can now make a free counterattack, or something like that. On the flip side, attackers might also have special moves that trigger when an opponent either dodges or parries, making it important to know what your opponent is capable of before you choose whether to dodge or parry for the round. Like I said, I think this would reinforce the notion that a "hit" isn't actually a hit until you're bleeding to death. At the same time, it would allow for some innovative tactics, and I believe it would make combat more fun. You still wouldn't want to get "hit", but if you did then at least you get to perform some cool maneuver. Thoughts?

One thing you might consider is using the rules for "swarms" from D&D, and just changing the scale.

That's generally similar to the idea I had, but that's a better way of expressing it. I'll probably do almost exactly what you said there.

Thanks again for all the great advice. I'm still open to any other ideas or suggestions.

[Simon C]

Hi,

I think your instinct is right that just remaming a few things in combat won't go far enough.  I think that one cool thing to do would be to use "rolled AC", i.e. rather than AC being 10 plus Dex plus Armour, it's d20 plus Dex plus Armour.  This will give more of a "defending myself" feel, I think.  It makes combat more random though, which is bad at low levels, and good at high levels.  Were you thinking of using the normal level advancement system?  Just starting the characters off at higher levels might be a good idea, in addition to other effect.  Another option is to lower the level of the whole world.  "E6" does this, bascially meaning that after sixth level, you only gain feats, and no new levels.  It has the effect of making the PCs much greater forces in the world, much sooner in the game, since all the NPCs have the same restriction.

In terms of "special powers", I think triggering when you make a successful block is a good idea.  Special moves which cause you to forego normal attacks almost never get used, or else they get used every round.  A special attack that's triggered by, say, a natural 20 on a defence roll, or your opponent rolling a one on theirs, tends to be more exciting to use.  Probably a good idea is to come u with a limited set of circumstances in which these thing are triggered, and then have a range of options for players to choose from, based on which powers they've chosen.  For example, the normal critical hit system could be changed so that now, when you score a critical hit, you can choose to disarm them if you've got the disarm feat, trip them if you've got the trip feat, and so on.

[David C]

If you want to stick closely to the D&D system, why don't you *change* the meaning of HP?

Like, HP is how long you can fight and how many "grasshoppers" you can take on at once. Here's my example with a character that has 100 hp.

Round 1, 100 hp, 17 foes attack
Round 2, 83 hp, 11 foes attack (the character spun a tableleg around and took out 6)
Round 3, 72 hp, 5 foes attack (the character jumped up, kicked two in the heads, than grabbed 1 of the guys and used his sword to stab 3 of the other guys, than broke that guys arm)
Round 4, 68 hp, 0 foes left. 

Minions don't actually have to make any sort of attack roll or anything, and HP is a sheer measurement of how long a guy can keep going for before passing out from exhaustion.  Of course, this make AC relatively pointless against minions, but you could use Damage Reduction "armor" rules instead, against minions, and than use AC as a "dodge" only against more powerful foes. Likewise, you could use "damage" as a measurement of how many minions you can take out a turn. Foes would have an HP rating as a "swarm" and one dies at every X hp. For example the foes have 3 HP each and there are 17 of them (51 hp total),

Round 1, 17 foes, 12+2d6 = 19. 19/3 = 6, remainder 1. 6 diie
Round 2, 11 foes, 12+2d6 = 17. 17+1(from last round)/3 = 6. 6 die
Round 3, 5 foes, 12 + 2d6 = 16. 16/3 = 5. 5 die. All of the minions are dead.

Of course, there are much, much, more elegant solutions, but limiting yourself to d20 is like trying to build a boat out of only a shipwreck. 

[Falc]

Also, what is your final goal? Designing the game, or playing it? Because if it's the latter, there are a few games out there already for this sort of wu-xia kung-fu antics. Feng Shui is probably the best known, and after googling on 'martial arts rpg' I found two D20 supplements ('Blood and Fists' and 'Martial Arts Mayhem'), a GURPS supplement called 'GURPS Martial Arts', a stand-alone game called 'Dragon Fist', ... If you just want to play, you'll get a game going faster by just buying one of these.

Of course, if you really want to design your own, these would still be excellent inspirations. As you can probably tell by now, your major challenge will be combat. A long, drawn-out combat with swords clashing and very little damage being done is cool to watch. It's also boring as hell if you're playing it out and all you actually do is roll dice and narrate.

[Nathan W]

Wow, thanks again for the input! Like I mentioned in my first post, I've been toying around with designing games for the last 10+ years, but I've yet to meet anyone face-to-face who had the same kind of interest for it that I could bounce ideas off of. I'm glad I found the Forge.

I think that one cool thing to do would be to use "rolled AC".

I see why you suggest this, but I believe that the cons outweigh the pros. This effectively doubles the number of rolls in a turn/round which means more time spent on rolling dice, adding up numbers and comparing them. As it is, combat is already the most rolls, and rules, intensive part of the game. I don't want it to get bogged down even more. I actually like what has been done with the d20 system in Star Wars Saga, where the number of rolls made in combat has been lowered considerably by eliminating iterative attacks.

Were you thinking of using the normal level advancement system?  Just starting the characters off at higher levels might be a good idea, in addition to other effect.  Another option is to lower the level of the whole world. "E6" does this, bascially meaning that after sixth level, you only gain feats, and no new levels.

I'm not entirely sure about level advancement yet. I believe characters will advance in levels like usual, but the exact benefits and stat progressions that come with it may be tweaked. Honestly, I never start PCs any lower than level 4 in any of the d20 games I've run, and that's only if they're really supposed to feel like farm boys out on their first adventure. Therefore, it's very likely that I'll make "level 1" in my game more like level 5 in standard d20. That's kind of like raising the level of the whole world rather than lowering it. Personally, I feel that characters at level 6 just don't have too many options, especially for a game that emphasizes epic heroism. Is there any reason why it would be better to limit things down instead of bumping them up?

In terms of "special powers", I think triggering when you make a successful block is a good idea.  Special moves which cause you to forego normal attacks almost never get used, or else they get used every round.  A special attack that's triggered by, say, a natural 20 on a defence roll, or your opponent rolling a one on theirs, tends to be more exciting to use.  Probably a good idea is to come u with a limited set of circumstances in which these thing are triggered, and then have a range of options for players to choose from, based on which powers they've chosen.  For example, the normal critical hit system could be changed so that now, when you score a critical hit, you can choose to disarm them if you've got the disarm feat, trip them if you've got the trip feat, and so on.

Those are some good guidelines for me to keep in mind. Thanks.

HP is how long you can fight and how many "grasshoppers" you can take on at once. ..... Minions don't actually have to make any sort of attack roll or anything, and HP is a sheer measurement of how long a guy can keep going for before passing out from exhaustion.  Of course, this make AC relatively pointless against minions, but you could use Damage Reduction "armor" rules instead, against minions, and than use AC as a "dodge" only against more powerful foes. Likewise, you could use "damage" as a measurement of how many minions you can take out a turn. Foes would have an HP rating as a "swarm" and one dies at every X hp. For example the foes have 3 HP each and there are 17 of them (51 hp total),

I think that is an innovative idea for handling how one character could take on a mob. However, I don't like the idea of making the system for fighting a mob and the system for fighting a single, more powerful character so different. It effectively means that players have to learn 2 variations of the combat system. I liked the idea that Simon C. presented of changing the grid size and simply treating a mass of minor opponents as a typical swarm.

limiting yourself to d20 is like trying to build a boat out of only a shipwreck.

I've already admitted that the first game I played was d20 Star Wars, so you probably think I'm just blindly going down the only path I know. The truth is there was a time when I shunned d20 due to it's many flaws. I've played various systems including Tri-Stat dX and its cousin BESM 3rd Ed. Also, the new WoD Storytelling system, MWP's Cortex system, my own diceless system, and a few others. After having a little bit of variety I realized every system has it's flaws, and d20 isn't especially worse than any other. Of course, there is the matter of taste, which I understand. I'll admit that I've never actually played D&D, though I've read through the SRD from cover to cover. I much prefer some of the modifications that other people have made to it, such is Green Ronin's True20 and Mutants & Masterminds 2nd Ed. as well as the often mentioned (by me) Star Wars Saga Ed. My goal is not to simply make "D&D in Asia". That's already been done. But I believe that using d20 as the basis for an Asian themed action-adventure RPG isn't a bad move. I'll try not to limit myself to d20, I'm just using it as the backbone of my system. (In case anyone is wondering: I in no way have anything to gain, legally or financially, by the continued profiteering of Wizards of the Coast. In fact, I stand to lose a lot of money if they keep publishing SW supplements.)

Also, what is your final goal? Designing the game, or playing it?

Designing the game. Definitely. Thanks for pointing out some of the various games and supplements already available. I'm familiar with a few of them and they are a source of inspiration, but none of them are quite how I'd do it myself. I enjoy designing RPGs at least as much as I enjoy playing them, so working on this game is a fun challenge.

As you can probably tell by now, your major challenge will be combat. A long, drawn-out combat with swords clashing and very little damage being done is cool to watch. It's also boring as hell if you're playing it out and all you actually do is roll dice and narrate.

I agree that this can be true. Perhaps my goals in this regard aren't quite clear. I've researched sword fighting and martial arts a little beyond what we see in the action flicks. It's amazing to me how intense it can be, and how much strategy is involved even in a one-on-one fight. I think the key to simulating this in a table-top RPG is giving each player plenty of options in combat, each with pros and cons depending on who their opponent is. This is bound to get sort of complicated, because of the number of options I want players to have, but I think it will make for some very satisfying combat for the kinds of players who enjoy that style of play. Your character might have a single maneuver that works wonders on one opponent, but the next opponent may be practically immune to it. What do you do now? Try out some of your other maneuvers. Possibly trap him into letting his guard down. Do something innovative. The action in the manga "Rurouni Kenshin" is a little bit different visually than what you see in the movies I've already mentioned, but how the main character approached each battle is sort of how I want players in my RPG to approach a fight.

So far you all have been a great sounding board, and you've offered up some good ideas and insights. I hope I don't sound dogmatic in my posts. I really don't believe that d20 is the be-all and end-all, or even that it is the best system out there. I'm just trying to explain why I'm approaching this idea the way I am. I really appreciate all the help I've gotten so far, and I'm still open to further suggestions.

[Simon C]

Yeah, don't be shy of using d20.  There's a lot of d20 hate around, and there are a number of reasons why it's not fashionable on this forum, but for what you're doing, d20 is absolutely the right tool for the job. 

Regarding rolled AC, I think your objections make sense.  I'm not so familiar with Star Wars Saga, but I understand it's got lots of good innovations.  One of the main strengths of using d20 is that you've got a vast pool of sources to draw on for rules variations.  I think tapping into that is a great idea.

The reason I suggest lowering the overall level, rather than raising it, probably has to do with my personal tastes in roleplaying.  I've found D&D changes quite significantly after sixth level, and I prefer the gameplay of the lower levels.  I'm also not a fan of the complexities of higher level play.  For what you're doing, and for your own tastes, raising the overall power level makes as much sense. 

There is a good argument though for narrowing the range of power levels.  I think there's a tendancy for d20 play to limit the power of the player characters to influence the world.  If you're a first level farm boy (or even a fifth level farm boy) the amount of influence you can have over a world where all the major players are 20th level and beyond is pretty minor.  Even small towns are likely to have their own forces that can match or beat your own power.  If, on the other hand, you're a fifth level farm boy, and the major players in the world are only 10th level or so, it's a much shorter climb until your character is a major player.  For me at least, that's where the really fun parts of play are, especially for the kind of epic fantasy you're after.  I've been in too many fantasy games where all the interesting stuff the GM has planned isn't supposed to happen until months of gaming have gone by.  Get to the good stuff right away.  The characters in Crouching Tiger, or Hero aren't saving some village from bandits, they're stealing the most powerful sword in the world, and assasinating the emeror of the greatest empire ever known.  Narrowing the gap between the most powerful entities in the world and the PCs allows you to get to that kind of play more quickly.

[Nathan W]

There is a good argument though for narrowing the range of power levels.

Your points are well taken. I'm not entirely sure, but I'll consider lowering the range of power levels.


Well, I started by asking about my ideas for the health/combat system and got some good responses. I've been working on revising some of the other aspects of the basic system and I thought I'd post them here to see what kind of responses I got.

The Core Mechanic
Roll 2d10 and add modifiers, instead of rolling 1d20.

Ability Scores
They're simply modifiers now, instead of having a score and then a modifier based on that. (based on the model used in True20)

Abilities
They are Strength, Agility, Intelligence, Perception, Willpower, and Guile.
Constitution has been dropped; Both Endurance (HP) and Fortitude saves are based on a combination of Strength and Willpower.
Wisdom has been dropped; most of its functions have been taken up by the new Perception ability, while a few of them have been given to the new Willpower ability.
Charisma has been dropped; all of its functions have been split between the new Willpower and Guile abilities.

Endurance and Fatigue (HP)
Hit points have been replaced with Endurance, which is based on a combination of Strength and Willpower and influenced by level. A character does not lose Endurance from damage, but rather suffers points of fatigue when they are "hit" by an attack. Once a character's fatigue equals their Endurance the next attack that hits them will render them unconscious or dead, depending on the type of attack.

Defense (AC)
Characters have a base Defense of 10 that is modified by their level. On their turn, they can choose to apply either a Dodge bonus or a Parry bonus to their Defense until their next turn. Some situations prevent a character from applying one or either of these bonuses, similar to how some situations prevent a character from applying his Dexterity bonus to AC in standard d20. The mechanics for being caught flat-footed are built into this model, as a character must choose on their turn which bonus to apply.

Classes
No classes. In my mind, a class is a profile of how your character's stats and other advantages advance when they gain a level, coupled with some "fluff". Instead, when your character gains a level you'll simply choose which stats and/or advantages advance (example: I'll take 1 feat and +X skill ranks).


What does anyone think? All comments are welcome.

[Simon C]

Core Mechanic 2d10.  This is an interesting call.  I would say that for high level play, this might be a mistake.  I've founf high level D&D to be really hard to balance.  Something slightly too easy will be a pushover for the PCs, but something slightly too hard will wipe them out.  Decreasing the randomness seems like it would only add to that problem.  However, I'm not super experienced in this area, so I don't really know.  I suspect playtesting this would anwer a lot of questions.  What are your motivations for this change?

Ability Scores:  Making them just modifiers seems pretty resonable.  As for altering the scores themselves, I think that it's a really good opportunity to focus what your game's about.  However, I don't know that you've worked that to its full potential here.  "Intelligence" seems to be a bit flavourless, and I'm not sure what a dedicated Perception stat gives.  What are kung-fu movies about?  I suggest you look at that, and build your stats around that.  "Guile" is cool, since deception plays a big part in movies like Crouching Tiger, and Hero.  I one "Agility" Stat enough?  What about having something like "Grace" and "Speed" They could apply to Parry and Dodge respectively.  Think about the defining features of the characters you see in those movies, and make stats to reflect that.

Defense: Does Agility add to this?  It should.  It's good thinking to have level add to this.  It means that as they go up levels, and the base attack bonuses of their opponents go up, it'll even out hopefully.

Classes:  I like classes! Um, my feeling is that players do too.  They're also fun to design.  But if you don't like them, don't keep them.  Be aware though that they perform an important role in D&D, making sure that every character has something unique to contribute to the party.  Your game might work differently, but look out for situations where one character is simply better than another.  That's no fun to play.

[dikaiosunh (Daniel)]

Just to throw one more idea into the mix... you might also want to take a look at the combat system in Burning Wheel - I find it too complex for my tastes, but it generates a lot of that complexity with fairly few rules, and is designed to capture a similar sort of "getting hit with a sword even once kills normal people" vibe.  I doubt it'd be easy (or prudent) to just translate it into d20, but it might be an interesting alternate combat system to look at for ideas.

- Daniel

[Nathan W]

Core Mechanic 2d10.  This is an interesting call.  I would say that for high level play, this might be a mistake. ..... I suspect playtesting this would anwer a lot of questions.  What are your motivations for this change?

I'll admit that my primary reason for this change is a gimmick. I envision abilities that allow you to do such things as roll 3d10 and take the best two for some rolls, or replace 1 dice with a set modifier for others - and things like that. Maybe this will prove to be a bad idea, but I thought it might be an interesting and fun way to give characters a bonus on certain things without giving just a flat +X to what they roll. Like you say, hopefully playtesting will show if this is a good or bad idea.

As for altering the scores themselves, I think that it's a really good opportunity to focus what your game's about.  However, I don't know that you've worked that to its full potential here.  "Intelligence" seems to be a bit flavourless, and I'm not sure what a dedicated Perception stat gives. ..... "Guile" is cool, since deception plays a big part in movies like Crouching Tiger, and Hero.  I one "Agility" Stat enough?  What about having something like "Grace" and "Speed" They could apply to Parry and Dodge respectively.

You might be right about not working this to full potential.
"Intelligence" is a bit flavourless, as you put it, but it seems like no matter what the setting there should be room for scholarly types, or those who are just plain smarter than others. However, perhaps a high Perception and Guile stat could reflect this. Perception being the ability to take in information and Guile being the ability to apply it in your favor. This reflects an outlook of knowledge for the sake of personal advantage rather than knowledge for the sake of knowledge. I think that fits well for a samurai, ninja, etc., but not for someone like a monk seeking enlightenment, so I'm not sure.
Perception functions a lot like Wisdom in d20. It would apply to Listen, Spot, and Sense Motive checks, along with a few others. Basically, the only thing that Perception isn't used for in my system, that Wisdom is used for in d20, is resistance checks. Willpower picks up that role. I think "Perception" is important for the kind of game I'm making. Often the martial arts master is portrayed as being very perceptive, both physically and mentally.
Your idea for splitting "Agility" into "Grace" and "Speed" is a neat one. In d20 "Speed" is usually a pretty static stat that is measured in feet of movement per round. But variations in one character's speed over another is important in martial arts, as is the distinction between "Grace" and "Speed", so your idea is well founded.

Defense: Does Agility add to this?  It should.

Agility affects your Dodge and Parry bonus, so in a roundabout way it does add to Defense. The only time your Agility would not add to your Defense is when you are restricted from Dodging or Parrying, such as when you are caught flat-footed, which is basically how it is in standard d20.

Classes:  I like classes! Um, my feeling is that players do too.  They're also fun to design.  But if you don't like them, don't keep them.  Be aware though that they perform an important role in D&D, making sure that every character has something unique to contribute to the party.  Your game might work differently, but look out for situations where one character is simply better than another.  That's no fun to play.

I think classes are good for some settings. The problem with classes is differentiating the range of character abilities along lines that make sense for establishing various "classes". In my setting martial arts means a philosophy as well as a fighting style. So even those who carry out political, religious, or scholarly duties, rather then being fighters, will still have a basic knowledge of martial arts. So I can't have a class such as "martial artist", because that's everyone, to one degree or another.
So what's next? Divide classes by style of fighting or types of weapons used? Right now I have a system that sets out 10 different styles/schools of martial arts, with each style consisting of 10 different moves/bonuses called maneuvers. The system is pretty free-form in how you choose what maneuvers your character learns, allowing a single character to choose maneuvers from across all 10 styles/schools, but providing perks to those who specialize in just one. Additionally, I want the usefulness of various maneuvers to not be limited by what sort of weapon your character chooses to wield.
I guess classes could simply be divided by occupation, but like I pointed out, it seems that there might not be enough variation there. For instance, where do you draw the line between an influential general and a political adviser who also happens to be particularly devoted to the martial arts? What about a samurai with a strong faith and a monk who is an accomplished fighter? It almost seems like it would be better to have feats like "Royal Favor" or "Faith", or even a stat to measure such things by degrees, rather than to have classes such as "Nobleman" or "Monk".

you might also want to take a look at the combat system in Burning Wheel

I'm trying to do as much research as I can for this project, so thanks for pointing out another resource Daniel.