Eh, it's pretty common to for kickstarters to have a number of really expensive options for those customers who have way too much money and don't know what to do with it. It's basically a tip jar, usually with some sort of actually exclusive reward (e.g. having the creator run a game for you). As long as the "expected" tiers are reasonably priced, I don't mind.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Tell Me About DC20
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
The Sigil
Mr. 3000 (Words per post)
I've seen this across several of my youtube feeds recently. I have not yet taken a look, but here were my gut reactions to some of the things mentioned.
I think HP bloat on monsters was exacerbated by design choices made with bounded accuracy in 5E. Yes, I understand, "missing feels bad." But you know what I think feels worse? Dealings $STUPID amounts of damage to an enemy and have him barely notice because the enemy has to have several hundred hit points to survive a single round because everyone hits him on a roll of 4 or better.
So in general, I'll say "decreases HP bloat" is a point in favor of this system in my mind.
My second reaction was, "this is dumbed-down pandering" - let's just outright say, "everybody gets maximum bonuses all the time" and be done with it and stop relying so much on bonuses from ability scores.
Oh, wait, 1e did that for the most part too (apart from Exceptional Strength) - most of your abilities came from your class & level, not your ability scores... and 3E broke that paradigm by making ability scores grant bonuses too easily and making many things dependent on having a high ability score bonus ... then 5E exacerbated that by keeping high ability score modifiers and limiting proficiency bonuses so now instead of being your class and level, you are your ability scores.
I think Pathfinder did the proper patching by making your Proficiency Bonus (tied to level) the dominant factor in successful rolls after the first couple of levels (Pathfinder still suffers in relying too much on ability scores for my taste).
Trying to give me "Decreased Damage" as a selling point? If you decreased Hit Points, I would hope you decreased damage, or the game will be stupid lethal.
Anyway, the whole thing is stupid. Class, Level, and Feats (one of 3E's best innovations) should define your combat capabilities, NOT ability scores (or their modifiers). So while "Decreased Damage" is neutral for me (as mentioned, you decreased hp, you better decrease damage), the "Primary Stat" (in other words, "put on kid gloves - you always get to use your best stat") is an enormous negative in my eyes.
Then I heard him break down the system a little more and point out "Pathfinder gives you 3 actions plus 1 reaction. Let's just make that 4 actions and let you spend action points on reactions instead and give you more things to react to... but when it gets to your turn, if you spent 3 reaction points over the course of combat since your last turn, you only have 1 action left" I actually thought that was quite insightful.
Moreover, some of the folks who said they'd playtested the system said it meant that players were generally more involved in combat because they might be jumping in with reactions at any time... unlike 5e D&D where people generally tune out when it isn't their turn, especially once they spend their one reaction.
This is a huge plus for me, and sounds like the part of the system I'm most likely to steal.
This system sounds similar; maybe it will be better, maybe it will be worse. I'm intrigued to see how they do it, but I am not certain it's something I want or need.
Not every PF2E ability even has unique Critical Fail/Fail/Succeed/Critical Success - coming up with 4 outcomes is hard enough and using steps of 5 requires about 7 steps for everything and I can't imagine this turning into anything except "add another die of damage for every 5 by which you exceed the target number." I like the "Degrees of Success" but hard pass if the number is 5 instead of 10.
I actually liked the introduction of Advantage in 5E, but it suffered from the same thing, and worse had a bunch of mechanics that "add 1d4" to rolls.
Pick ONE bonus mechanic and stick with it.
I have tried many mana points systems over the years, and I've never liked them better than 5E/PF2E spell slots with upcasting and/or (3E) metamagic feats. So I'll probably take a look out of curiosity and some point, but I doubt it will be my cup of tea.
So, in total, as far as my gaming tastes go:
There are some things I've heard about DC20 that I think sound like critical successes.
There are some things that sound like moderate successes.
There are some things that sound like failures.
There are some things that sound like critical failures.
On balance, I think it sounds interesting enough for me to pick up like I'd pick up any other third party supplement I thought contained interesting ideas to steal, but I suspect the net result is probably going to fall somewhere north of "Hearbreak" but south of "the next Pathfinder."
In other words, I'm probably going to steal some stuff from this, but I'm not likely to convert to it.
I've never felt Hit Point bloat was an issue for low-level characters in any edition of D&D. I think the original AD&D and B/X rules, where you got 1 to 3 hit points (depending on class) after 9th level were just fine, but I think 3E, where you could have 20d10 HP, was a step in the wrong direction (and thought so at the time).
I think HP bloat on monsters was exacerbated by design choices made with bounded accuracy in 5E. Yes, I understand, "missing feels bad." But you know what I think feels worse? Dealings $STUPID amounts of damage to an enemy and have him barely notice because the enemy has to have several hundred hit points to survive a single round because everyone hits him on a roll of 4 or better.
So in general, I'll say "decreases HP bloat" is a point in favor of this system in my mind.
As soon as I heard "Primary Stat! You can have an intelligence-based Barbarian!" my immediate thought was, "that might work for martials, but does that mean I can have a Strength-based Wizard?"
My second reaction was, "this is dumbed-down pandering" - let's just outright say, "everybody gets maximum bonuses all the time" and be done with it and stop relying so much on bonuses from ability scores.
Oh, wait, 1e did that for the most part too (apart from Exceptional Strength) - most of your abilities came from your class & level, not your ability scores... and 3E broke that paradigm by making ability scores grant bonuses too easily and making many things dependent on having a high ability score bonus ... then 5E exacerbated that by keeping high ability score modifiers and limiting proficiency bonuses so now instead of being your class and level, you are your ability scores.
I think Pathfinder did the proper patching by making your Proficiency Bonus (tied to level) the dominant factor in successful rolls after the first couple of levels (Pathfinder still suffers in relying too much on ability scores for my taste).
Trying to give me "Decreased Damage" as a selling point? If you decreased Hit Points, I would hope you decreased damage, or the game will be stupid lethal.
Anyway, the whole thing is stupid. Class, Level, and Feats (one of 3E's best innovations) should define your combat capabilities, NOT ability scores (or their modifiers). So while "Decreased Damage" is neutral for me (as mentioned, you decreased hp, you better decrease damage), the "Primary Stat" (in other words, "put on kid gloves - you always get to use your best stat") is an enormous negative in my eyes.
Kind of neutral here. Never had a big issue with 6 Ability Scores, though I'm not totally attached to them. Many different systems have used different abilities over the years, and 6 is not some sort of sacred cow. So this is neutral for me.
Initially I heard this and rolled my eyes. "If Pathfinder is getting praise for using a 3-action economy, our game will be even cooler with a 4-action economy!"
Then I heard him break down the system a little more and point out "Pathfinder gives you 3 actions plus 1 reaction. Let's just make that 4 actions and let you spend action points on reactions instead and give you more things to react to... but when it gets to your turn, if you spent 3 reaction points over the course of combat since your last turn, you only have 1 action left" I actually thought that was quite insightful.
Moreover, some of the folks who said they'd playtested the system said it meant that players were generally more involved in combat because they might be jumping in with reactions at any time... unlike 5e D&D where people generally tune out when it isn't their turn, especially once they spend their one reaction.
This is a huge plus for me, and sounds like the part of the system I'm most likely to steal.
I felt Pathfinder hit the sweet spot for me with Archetypes (the "spend a feat for it, not the everyone gets a free one") that unlock limited purchases of other class abilities with your Feats. I think D&D multiclassing has struggled mightily with how to mix martial and caster classes without making them fall behind in either (again, this goes back to "everyone has to have access to everything" - I really love Mark Rosewater's statement that "restrictions breed creativity"), and I think using Feats as a resource you have to trade off if you want to mix the two is the best idea I've seen.
This system sounds similar; maybe it will be better, maybe it will be worse. I'm intrigued to see how they do it, but I am not certain it's something I want or need.
Degrees of success are good, but I believe I heard on one of the videos that for every 5 you exceed a roll by (or miss by), you get another degree of success. My reaction here is that they thought "Pathfinder got kudos for using +10 and -10 for critical failure and success, so if we do +5 we can do it more!"
Not every PF2E ability even has unique Critical Fail/Fail/Succeed/Critical Success - coming up with 4 outcomes is hard enough and using steps of 5 requires about 7 steps for everything and I can't imagine this turning into anything except "add another die of damage for every 5 by which you exceed the target number." I like the "Degrees of Success" but hard pass if the number is 5 instead of 10.
I'm probably old-school and like "0 hp means you're dead" but that stopped being the norm 20 years ago. But this sounds better to me than Death Saves. So I guess, net positive, but I probably won't use it?
No. If you are using modifiers (which, based on "Prime Ability" we already know you are), you shouldn't use Advantage and vice versa.
I actually liked the introduction of Advantage in 5E, but it suffered from the same thing, and worse had a bunch of mechanics that "add 1d4" to rolls.
Pick ONE bonus mechanic and stick with it.
Eh. Skills pretty much already to this except the min-max crowd refuses to spend skills on "suboptimal" items like "Trades." I'll look, but I can't imagine finding much new ground here.
See my comments about reduced hit points. I might get behind this.
As far as I can tell, 5E isn't really a Vancian spell slot system any more, and I have to admit, I liked the introduction of the upcasting (5e)/heightened spell slot (PF2E) mechanics as ways to make spell slots feel a little more like a spell point pool without going directly to mana points.
I have tried many mana points systems over the years, and I've never liked them better than 5E/PF2E spell slots with upcasting and/or (3E) metamagic feats. So I'll probably take a look out of curiosity and some point, but I doubt it will be my cup of tea.
So, in total, as far as my gaming tastes go:
There are some things I've heard about DC20 that I think sound like critical successes.
There are some things that sound like moderate successes.
There are some things that sound like failures.
There are some things that sound like critical failures.
On balance, I think it sounds interesting enough for me to pick up like I'd pick up any other third party supplement I thought contained interesting ideas to steal, but I suspect the net result is probably going to fall somewhere north of "Hearbreak" but south of "the next Pathfinder."
In other words, I'm probably going to steal some stuff from this, but I'm not likely to convert to it.
mamba
Legend
ha, same here. Don’t really like that from a mechanics perspective. I understand why he did it, but finding an explanation for it that is not gamist is not so essy
That said, I see it more as a way of getting ability scores out of the way, and opening classes to more interpretations. Magic power, in particular, seems kinda dumb to have connected to Intelligence given how often powerful mages are outwitted by cunning rogues in fiction.
The Sigil
Mr. 3000 (Words per post)
Well, if you collapse "Intelligence and Wisdom" to "Intelligence" (as DC20 does), it doesn't make sense to connect magic power to Intelligence; I have always felt splitting intelligence (book smarts) and wisdom (street smarts) felt better anyway as I know a lot of very wise folks that aren't book-learned, and a lot of people with their brains stuffed with facts but without a lick of common sense.
I always assumed the cunning rogue getting over on the brainy mage was a case of a high-wisdom, high-charisma character beating out a low-wisdom character. Brainy Intelligence has nothing to do with it.
That said, magic power has been associated with Charisma since 3E introduced the Sorcerer and re-did the Bard, and only seems to have pushed farther toward a Charisma association since for most classes, which makes sense as magic in fiction is now more of a "projecting your will upon the world" and less of a "magic is like science and as you gain a greater understanding of the 'rules' of magic, you gain more power to invoke it as you can understand more complex incantations" thing like it was in early D&D. Neither way is BETTER. They are simply DIFFERENT.
Last edited:
mamba
Legend
that would severely limit what the Bard or Sorcerer can cast though, I can see how Fireball is some applied weird science, I don’t think you can sweet-talk the air into producing one however, no matter how persuasive you are
And don’t get me started on Strength or Dexterity DC20 style
Int-based arcane magic is about finding the cheat codes of reality. Cha-based is telling the laws of physics to sit down and shut up.that would severely limit what the Bard or Sorcerer can cast though, I can see how Fireball is some applied weird science, I don’t think you can sweet-talk the air into producing one however, no matter how persuasive you are
And don’t get me started on Strength or Dexterity DC20 style
Might also covers your constitution, so while yes, you can also think of it as using your body as a conduit for magic.
mamba
Legend
agreed, they are called laws for a reason however
Laws can be broken, and a lot of the time people can get away with doing so.agreed, they are called laws for a reason however
Similar Threads
