OSR New OSR game free beta test ... MAGES & MONSTERS

[Islayre d'Argolh]

- 14 New classes: assassin, bard, beastmaster, berserker, druid, illusionist, inquisitor, necromancer, paladin, ranger, scout, shifter, skald, and theurge.

To be honest i'm disapointed by the new classes.

The strenght of your work on the 5 core classes is the simplicity of it : they are easy to understand and to handle.
The new ones are closer to their 3.5/Prpg counterpart, with more abilities.

In my opinion every new classe should be as simple as the 5 original ones.

Some examples :

Can we imagine a "scout ranger" being a thief variant with ahtletics, handle animal and nature lore as class skills instead of open lock, disable device and sleight of hand ?
Ca we imagine a "barbarian ranger" being a fighter variant with only light and medium armor proficiency but nature lore and perception as bonus class skills ?

Can we imagine a "swordmage treatment" (= strict class-mix without new abilities) for a Fighter-Cleric (= Paladin) or a Mage-Thief (= Bard) ?

 

[Islayre d'Argolh]

Quick question about the core rules : what do you think about giving to elf and halfling thieves a free skill mastery (on perception and stealth respectively) to compensate their wasted racial skill proficiency ?

 

[Roadkill101]

I’ve readthrough the beta once (skimming some sections like spell descriptionsfrex). I like the simplicity and flatmath with what you’ve done here.
I like theinclusion of the arcane caster/fighter in the swordmage. Any plans to include a full-blown divinecaster class (where I view the swordmage as a balancing class to the cleric asa divine caster/fighter, not that I’ve done any sort of in depth comparisonbetween the two)?
The bonusspell slots from ability boni is a nice touch. Especially for mages, as casting spells is their primary schtick, IMO itmakes them more viable (and/or versatile) at lower levels before having resortto relying on just cantrips in combat (casting-wise).
I really likethe mages offensive cantrip in a damage-wise capacity. IMO the damage output for offensive cantripsin the DDN play-tests was too high for my concept of what a cantrip should becapable of accomplishing. I do think theclerics healing orison should heal a like amount of damage balance-wise though.
Also reallylike the fighting styles. It seems to methat that the whole mastery concept could be dropped in favor of allowingfighters to just cherry-pick their style when available, as only Improved Smashseems to have any kind of pre-req. Thiswould allow a bit more character customization to my way of thinking. For those who favor concept over optimizationin a character, I think that for those styles where a damage bonus is gainedfrom an ability score, an option (i.e. a set value) should be given as analternative (specifically powershot and ripping claws). Have you given any consideration to makingthe individual styles scalable (maybe replacing the current mastery concept) asa way for allowing a character to be more focused on a narrower aspect (aspecific type of style, similar in vein to smash then improved smash)?
The Return toOakhurst adventure was really well done. I’m not a big fan of modules/pre-written adventures. Were I aware of more like this, I’d have abetter reason to drop money into gaming materials outside of any initial coreproducts (opposed to home-brewing my own adventures).
The only downside for me (which I don’t care for in general, and house-rule out) was theinclusion of caps for the Dex bonus in relationship to the type of armor.
Great Job!
(Off to readthe Expansion Alpha)
Edit: Had trouble writing this up (keyboard would not respond and had to pound on keys to get skipped letters to take), so wrote it off-line and pasted, paste job removed some of the spacing between words. Apologies tendered for difficulty to read.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

To be honest i'm disapointed by the new classes.

The strenght of your work on the 5 core classes is the simplicity of it : they are easy to understand and to handle.
The new ones are closer to their 3.5/Prpg counterpart, with more abilities.

In my opinion every new classe should be as simple as the 5 original ones.

Some examples :

Can we imagine a "scout ranger" being a thief variant with ahtletics, handle animal and nature lore as class skills instead of open lock, disable device and sleight of hand ?
Ca we imagine a "barbarian ranger" being a fighter variant with only light and medium armor proficiency but nature lore and perception as bonus class skills ?

Can we imagine a "swordmage treatment" (= strict class-mix without new abilities) for a Fighter-Cleric (= Paladin) or a Mage-Thief (= Bard) ?

Appreciate the feedback. Most of the new classes were intended to provide additional "hybrid" options for the other class mixes, though I did add some things in to capture a more traditional "flavor" and keep them interesting. They're certainly optional, though. If you think there's a need for simpler, more direct hybrid classes, I could certainly insert those (like the swordmage). Should the hybrids be distinct and thinks like the ranger and paladin be variants instead?

If I add some simpler hybrid options closer to the swordmage in design, which ones would you like to see? I can imagine a "warpriest" who is the fighter-cleric equivalent of the swordmage (full casting, improved BAB). Is a direct thief-mage (not sure what to call it; bard already has some baggage and I think gets distinct) and thief-cleric (e.g. inquisitor without special abilities) also something you'd like?

Quick question about the core rules : what do you think about giving to elf and halfling thieves a free skill mastery (on perception and stealth respectively) to compensate their wasted racial skill proficiency ?

It would certainly be good to avoid "wasted" abilities. Free skill mastery is one option; perhaps allowing a free skill proficiency choice would be the other. The former maintains the "flavor" of the race, the latter is more flexible. Of the two, which would you prefer?

I’ve readthrough the beta once (skimming some sections like spell descriptionsfrex). I like the simplicity and flatmath with what you’ve done here.
I like theinclusion of the arcane caster/fighter in the swordmage. Any plans to include a full-blown divinecaster class (where I view the swordmage as a balancing class to the cleric asa divine caster/fighter, not that I’ve done any sort of in depth comparisonbetween the two)?

Glad you've liked it so far. That's an excellent suggestion, in line with [MENTION=98699]Islayre d'Argolh[/MENTION]'s suggestion for "pure" hybrids. I originally intended that to be filled with an expanded class, but the Expanded Classes thus far do not fill that niche. I'll have to take a look at converting paladin & ranger to variants so I can build a "full caster" fighter-cleric hybrid that's more generic and closer to the swordmage in style.

The bonus spell slots from ability boni is a nice touch. Especially for mages, as casting spells is their primary schtick, IMO itmakes them more viable (and/or versatile) at lower levels before having resortto relying on just cantrips in combat (casting-wise).

I really like the mages offensive cantrip in a damage-wise capacity. IMO the damage output for offensive cantrips in the DDN play-tests was too high for my concept of what a cantrip should be capable of accomplishing.
I do think the clerics healing orison should heal a like amount of damage balance-wise though.

Good -- while I love B/X and BECMI D&D, it was always frustrating to play a caster and run out of spells because you only have one per day. I'm cautious about it being overkill and running into the "linear fighter, quadratic wizard" problem, so I've been concerned that it might be too generous. I thought that the "prepared" versus "cast" slot differences helped give casters greater flexibility (since you can use all your casting slots to cast the same spell repeatedly if you want, but the prepared spells still gives adventuring flexibility) with the power balance being helped by less inherent scaling in spells (most spells now scale with spell slot level, which while related to caster level is not caster level itself).

On the healing orison -- I'm cautious about stepping on the 1st level spells since the orison is "at will", but I can see how 2-3 hp is underwhelming. Would losing the "+WIS bonus" in trade for a fixed "1d4+1" be more appealing without being too generous?

Also really like the fighting styles. It seems to me that that the whole mastery concept could be dropped in favor of allowing fighters to just cherry-pick their style when available, as only Improved Smash seems to have any kind of pre-req. This would allow a bit more character customization to my way of thinking. For those who favor concept over optimization in a character, I think that for those styles where a damage bonus is gained from an ability score, an option (i.e. a set value) should be given as an alternative (specifically powershot and ripping claws). Have you given any consideration to making the individual styles scalable (maybe replacing the current mastery concept) as a way for allowing a character to be more focused on a narrower aspect (a specific type of style, similar in vein to smash then improved smash)?

I'm considering an optional approach to allow fighters to just pick an individual fighting style item rather than follow the "style tree". As is, the ala carte method becomes a bit too much like the 3E feat system. I'm trying to offer something simpler and more streamlined in the basic game, but I can see where the option to be more flexible might be appreciated. I find it a challenge to strike a balance between simple and customizable (the skill system suffers there -- this system is simpler than skill points; an even simpler system might be ability checks only, but then there's the challenge with the "skill guy" classes like the thief -- ultimately I ended up going with the skill system you see because I thought it struck the right balance).

The Return to Oakhurst adventure was really well done. I’m not a big fan of modules/pre-written adventures. Were I aware of more like this, I’d have a better reason to drop money into gaming materials outside of any initial core products (opposed to home-brewing my own adventures).

Thanks -- that's one of my better products! Adventures are my favorites, but writing good ones is tough. I have a sort-of sequel in mind for RoOR for about levels 5-7 that I want to put together to support the playtest ... if I can find the extra time!

The only downside for me (which I don’t care for in general, and house-rule out) was theinclusion of caps for the Dex bonus in relationship to the type of armor.
Great Job!
(Off to readthe Expansion Alpha)

I've considered dropping that -- with the reduced ACs, it really isn't critical. Dropping that feature does simplify the armor system, which is a plus. I want to keep the classes of light, medium, and heavy armor as viable options, though -- do you think dropping the DEX caps still makes them good choices, or would you just gravitate to heavy armor?

Thanks for the feedback guys, keep it coming! If you like 'em, be sure to give 'em a rating on the downloads page, so they become more visible to other people who might be interested.

 

[Islayre d'Argolh]

Should the hybrids be distinct and thinks like the ranger and paladin be variants instead?

If I add some simpler hybrid options closer to the swordmage in design, which ones would you like to see? I can imagine a "warpriest" who is the fighter-cleric equivalent of the swordmage (full casting, improved BAB). Is a direct thief-mage (not sure what to call it; bard already has some baggage and I think gets distinct) and thief-cleric (e.g. inquisitor without special abilities) also something you'd like?

It would certainly be good to avoid "wasted" abilities. Free skill mastery is one option; perhaps allowing a free skill proficiency choice would be the other. The former maintains the "flavor" of the race, the latter is more flexible. Of the two, which would you prefer?

IMHO Barbarians, Rangers and Paladins should have been simple Fighter variants.
As i said previoulsy building a Ranger could have been as simple as removing some armor proficiencys and adding some class skills, for example (and this variant can also provide good "thug" or "marshall" build, with differents class skills).

In the same way, Druids could have been a Cleric variant (a few différent spells, different class skill), Scouts a thief variant (différent class skills) and Bards a Mage/Thief hybrid (swordmage type : just a weaker arcane spellcaster with more class skills, skills masteries and maybe the access to some divine spells like the healing ones).

You can also prefer the Paladin as a fighter/cleric hybrid (basically a divine version of the swordmage).

Anyway my point is : i LOVE what you've done on the 5 core classes. It's simple, elegant.
I expect the same simplicity for additional classes and if some sacred cows must be sacrfied in the process, so be it : your Mage & Monsters is already better than 95% of the D&D versions on the market (official and clones), just don't feel bound by old habits.

And about the skill-thing i prefer the flavor option

Other question about the core rules : the free healing orison for the cleric should been restricted in some way [no more than (wisdom bonus) free healings on the same character every 8 hours ?] because, as written, you can assume that every 10 minutes pause a group of character will heal to full life (+2-4 HP every 6 second goes a long way...).
I think it's bad for the "ressource management" aspect of the game.

Keep up the good work, your game is awesome.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Anyway my point is : i LOVE what you've done on the 5 core classes. It's simple, elegant.
I expect the same simplicity for additional classes and if some sacred cows must be sacrfied in the process, so be it : your Mage & Monsters is already better than 95% of the D&D versions on the market (official and clones), just don't feel bound by old habits.

One last question: do you think the additional simplified classes should be in the "core" document, or in the "expanded" rules? I think you're right that the game needs them from a design consistency perspective. If I add them though I think want keep the more complex classes as well for more customization options -- some folks will like having the mechanics for shapeshifters, animal companions, etc, though those will definitely stay in the expanded rules. My inclination would be to put the swordmage-like classes in the "core" and keep the more complex set of options in "advanced".

Other question about the core rules : the free healing orison for the cleric should been restricted in some way [no more than (wisdom bonus) free healings on the same character every 8 hours ?] because, as written, you can assume that every 10 minutes pause a group of character will heal to full life (+2-4 HP every 6 second goes a long way...).
I think it's bad for the "ressource management" aspect of the game.

Good point -- particularly since there is already a non-magical "short rest" healing mechanic. I think the solution is to apply that same mechanic to the orison (no more than CON points healed per character per day).

 

[Islayre d'Argolh]

One last question: do you think the additional simplified classes should be in the "core" document, or in the "expanded" rules? I think you're right that the game needs them from a design consistency perspective. If I add them though I think want keep the more complex classes as well for more customization options -- some folks will like having the mechanics for shapeshifters, animal companions, etc, though those will definitely stay in the expanded rules. My inclination would be to put the swordmage-like classes in the "core" and keep the more complex set of options in "advanced".

I completely agreed.

I you can propose some additional options by only changing/adding a few words (or by creating a simple hybrid classe like the swordmage), do it in the core rules.
If the tweak need more than those few words (or needs some new and complex abilities), keep it for advanced.

Example : change your thief into a rogue and give it 5 freeform class skills (instead of 5 preselected ones). By changing 7-8 words you can have now a possible ranger-like or bard-like classe in the core rules.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I completely agreed.

I you can propose some additional options by only changing/adding a few words (or by creating a simple hybrid classe like the swordmage), do it in the core rules.
If the tweak need more than those few words (or needs some new and complex abilities), keep it for advanced.

Example : change your thief into a rogue and give it 5 freeform class skills (instead of 5 preselected ones). By changing 7-8 words you can have now a possible ranger-like or bard-like classe in the core rules.

I really, really like your suggestions. I think this is what I'm going to do:

General: modify minor healing; add a note to skill proficiency that repeat proficiency in a racial skill grants skill mastery. Relook DEX requirements for armor.

Add/modify in the core rules:
- Under cleric: add Druid (variant cleric with "Druid Domain" spells and alternate skills and channel divinity).
- Under fighter: add Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger (variant fighters with different skills, and an ability tweak instead of the fighter's weapon skill)
- Under thief: add scout, rogue (variant thieves with skill changes)
0 Add hybrid classes (swordmage-style design): warpriest (fighter/cleric), enforcer (fighter/thief), minstrel (mage/thief) ... debating a cleric/thief option (monk? friar? mystic?) and bringing theurge forward from expanded rules for mage/cleric. These classes won't have new mechanics, just flavor and mix adjustments like the swordmage.

Modify in expanded rules:
- Druid renamed to Animagus
- Paladin renamed to Templar
- Ranger renamed to Warden
- Scout renamed to Explorer

Give me a day or two and I'll update the download documents.

 

[Roadkill101]

I've considered dropping that -- with the reduced ACs, it really isn't critical. Dropping that feature does simplify the armor system, which is a plus. I want to keep the classes of light, medium, and heavy armor as viable options, though -- do you think dropping the DEX caps still makes them good choices, or would you just gravitate to heavy armor?

Ithink that dropping the Dex cap bonus for armor makes medium and heavy armors abetter option for those classes who get them as proficiencies. It definitely makes the armor system simpler,which it seems you’re going for with this system.
Considerthat the earlier versions of the game were also simpler in this way, intentionallyso IIRC for 1e, where Gary Gygax in one of the Col_Pladoh threads addressedthis issue. I believe the reasoning wentsomething along the lines of; armors that hindered movement and mobility on thebattlefield were quickly rendered obsolete (because you ended up dead).
Someyears back I watched a show on the History channel where two SCA re-enactorswere sparring with two-handed blades while wearing some form of plate. They were very fast, mobile and maneuverablein action. It made me feel that any suchcaps for armor were instituted as some form of mechanical balance (where I’mmore “Old School” in temperance and not a big fan of balance for balances sake,just a nod towards it will do for me). Thereforeto my thinking, any forms of armor that restrict maneuverability aren’t widelyused and game-wise wouldn’t exist (unless one wants the extra book keepinginvolved via tracking performance versus quality of constructed goods). Tangentially, speed penalties for heavierarmors also seem unnecessary IMO.
Iinterpret a Dex bonus applied to AC as being an increase in speed and mobilityfrom having a high score. The way I’mseeing it light armor wearing classes are typically those that need to rely onspeed and mobility and the bonus from Dex allows them to capitalize through abetter AC, and able to keep up with the heavier armor wearing types AC wise (tosome degree). However, AC for armorcomes via the materials and construction (IMO), so any Dex caps penalize(unfairly) heavier armor wearers through any bonuses due to natural talent,ability and/or training where such is gained through mobility.
I’vehad a chance to skim through the Expansion classes. I really like that for the hybrid classes youshow what primary classes are being drawn from, makes it easier to figure outwhich one best fits a character concept without having to read through all theclasses. I especially like that youcalled the Beserker a Berserker not a Barbarian (which to me invokes a sense ofprimitive technological development and degree of ignorance and superstition,which only 1e (and maybe 2e, can’t recall) tried to capture).
I’mpicking up a very strong 1e vibe for the spells BTW (well for the names anyway,still haven’t really gotten around to reading any of the descriptions yet).
Note: Once again I’m having trouble typing responsein the window, so this was written off-line then pasted. Apologies if any spacing issues cropped up,causing reading difficulty, from the paste job.

 

[Roadkill101]

On the healing orison -- I'm cautious about stepping on the 1st level spells since the orison is "at will", but I can see how 2-3 hp is underwhelming. Would losing the "+WIS bonus" in trade for a fixed "1d4+1" be more appealing without being too generous?

Oops! I’m overlooking the “at-will” bit. But the low amount of healing is still abuse-able(which is what I’m thinking is the reasoning behind the low number is trying toprevent) through multiple repeated use outside of (just after) combat.
Somaybe increase the amount of healing to 1d4+1, but limit the number of times theCleric can use the ability on a specific individual per a daily basis. Perhaps once per four class levels plus Wisbonus would work (eight times a day maximum for a 20^th level Clericper any one individual). The Cleric canstill use it “at-will” but is prevented from abusing the ability (and possiblybeing viewed as filling a strictly heal-bot role).
Whenit comes to damage/healing for spells, I’m big on the concept of implementing scalabilitybased on die type used applied to spell level. Thus 0 level spells use a d4, 1^st through 3^rd used6, 4^th through 6^th use a d8, etc. Maybe also limit the number of dice used aswell. To me, something like this wouldhelp aid in the damage output problem faced by the LFQW issues.
Note: Once again I’m having trouble typing responsein the window, so this was written off-line then pasted. Apologies if any spacing issues cropped up,causing reading difficulty, from the paste job.