Sound the trumpets! The revised playtest document for what will become Dragon Hack 2.0 is finally complete and available right here. Please do download and take a spin through the document and tell me what you think. More importantly, give it a play through with a couple of friends and offer the feedback that will make the upcoming official release even stronger.
Feedback is welcome right here on the site, or shoot me an email at joshjarman AT gmail DOT com. For those of who who managed to grab a pre-public release of the playtest from me on twitter, please be sure to grab the latest version as it clears up and clarifies some elements and is the most “current” version of the revised Dragon Hack rules. If you missed your chance to get the pre-release because you’re not following me on twitter, why not? I’m @JoJa_rpg and I waste most my day on twitter talking about Dragon Hack, Dragon Age, Pathfinder and rpgs in general.
Thanks to everyone who has helped shape this document through your comments here and elsewhere. I hope you’ll see some of your input in the playtest document. Together we can really make this a fun and functional race and class system for Dragon Age.
Thanks again!
Many thanks!
The following is a response I made to questions that were posted about the playtest over at the Dragon Age RPG forum at Green Ronin. I thought I would repost it here so folks who had similar questions could see the reasoning behind some of the elements in the playtest. I am still of course looking for feedback on all the elements of the playtest, including the issues addressed in the following exchange. I’ll first post the questions that were raised and then my response to those questions.
The Feedback:
“There seem to be a lot of backgrounds that can choose the Dexterity (Stealth) focus (Dark Elf, Wild Elf, Halfling, Hill Dwarf). Maybe it’s just because the four are in quick succession when you read them but it felt like every other background had it. Just a sugestion but could you maybe swap Dexterity (Legerdemain) with Dexterity (Stealth) for the Halfling? Legerdemain is already on the 2D6 table so it wouldn’t be a huge deal. I also think it actually fits better but that’s just my opinion. As well as that for some reason I imagined the Dark Elves having Dexterity (Legerdemain) but that might be because I’m thinking of the Forgotten Realms Drow with their sign language.
For the Urban Human background it feels like they should really have Communication instead of Strength on the 2D6 table. It feels like it would better reflect the nature of living in a big city and conversing and bargaining with people.
On the flip side of that it feels like the Frontier Human should have Strength instead of Communication. This would reflect the long hours spent working the land and being away from alot of people. I think they should still have the Animal Handling focus though.
The Master level of the Cleric Talent seems really really powerful: 2D6 + Magic penetrating damage in an area AND 2D6 Healing? Seems crazy strong. Especially when compared to something like the Bard’s Master level talent where they only gain a talent level and a new bard song. I know the Cleric attack has to be against undead but it still seems excessive. 1D6 maybe? Or not penetrating?
I’m also not sure of the Sorcerer master level. Double mana just to add 1D6 damage? I dunno. Seems steep. Just my opinion though.
The Novice level of Wizard says you gain spells equal to 3 + your Cunning. I presume this is the 3 you get for being a Mage + your Cunning, as opposed to 6 + Cunning? You just might want to reword it slightly.”
My Response:
Saisei,
Thanks for the feedback. Your thoughts on the background bonuses is well taken, and I’ll take another spin through them. The urban human and frontier human still contain some trappings from when they were the Militarist and Outlaw backgrounds (though there were some changes) and can use another run through. A lot of the backgrounds that have Dexterity (Stealth) do so because the race gains a bonus to the Stealth Skill in Pathfinder, which is of course the basis for the conversion. I’ll do a once over, however.
Points of clarification: The master level Cleric ability is an OR not an AND. The cleric must choose whether to heal allies or harm enemies each time he or she uses the power. Because it can only damage undead, and thus is a corner case, the penetrating damage doesn’t seem out of line to me. (And fits the iconic cleric Turn Undead ability) Also, because the character would be fifth level before gaining the ability, the 2d6 doesn’t feel out of line, either, but perhaps it could be a straight 2d6 and not 2d6 + Magic? I’ll have to think on it.
Sorcerer is a tough balance because I want to make them the blaster-types of Mages, who can do more damage but are less versatile (Otherwise I don’t see much of a reason for a second caster class) but if you allow extra damage to be granted by a static number of mana, Mages eventually get so much mana where it’s for practical reasons not a limit on its use at all. The compensation is that sorcerers get more mana than a regular Mage, so have an easier time expending that extra cost. Again, I need more feedback before I make a decision here. I would love to her other thoughts on how to make the Sorcerer more blastery.
I probably need to redraft the Wizard section, but I thought it was clear that the 3+ Cunning was instead of that gained by the Magic Training class ability. This is because the number of spells gained is later referenced against the number of spells the Wizard can choose to remember each day (which is the number of spells granted through the class ability.) But just to be clear for all concerned: A Wizard character can pick 3+ Cunning spells to learn at first level, instead of the number of spells granted by the Magic Training class ability. However, no Mage can memorize a number of spells per day greater than that granted by the Magic Training ability. Thus, a first level Wizard with a 3 Cunning would be able to pick 6 spells they know at first level (OMG 6 Spells!) but would have to choose each morning which 3 of those spells to cast that day in addition to Arcane Lance.
It makes the Wizard class more versatile, but no more powerful than the other caster types. (That’s the hope anyways).
So I hope that answered your questions and the questions of those who had similar thoughts when reading through the playtest. This is exactly why feedback is so important during the design process. I’ll make sure all these points are clarified in future revisions.
Thanks again!
Just skimmed through this and it’s great stuff! I’ll post more comments when I have a chance to read it properly, but One idea I had about fighters was to use the stance warrior specialization as their class talent, but that may be overpowered…
Ok, finally had a chance to go through this properly!
Backgrounds: All look good to me – I’ll post a couple of Eberron backgrounds on my blog as a comparison.
As a general point for discussion, should class talents have effects beyond level 5? For example, the fighter gets +1 to a favourite weapon group at 1st level, +2 at 5th and +3 at 10th. I like the fact that talents are “contained” at least within the “level tier” they are intended for. That would appear to be the design philosophy behind Green Ronin’s Set 2 specializations at any rate.
Bard: Looks good, and I imagine the idea is that the bard specialization (which probably has to be renamed!) follows on naturally from these.
Cleric: These are fine for good clerics, but may have to be adjusted for evil clerics. I’d say that clerics would have a primary school (no armour strain when casting) and a secondary school (2 less strain) that would depend on the deity. However, we’d then need a suitable Journeyman talent for evil/neutral clerics (command undead perhaps? Or a bleed effect?).
Druid: This is good, but perhaps the Journeyman talent should be based around gaining bonuses to Primal magic? Currently there’s nothing that marks the Druid out as a particular type of caster. Maybe they reduce the armour strain by 1, but only if wearing leather…
Fighter: I had the thought that the stance warrior talent might be an interesting class talent set for the fighter, rather than a specialization. Makes the fighter more tactically focussed right off the bat! The armour penalty reduction granted at the Journeyman level seems a bit high. Similarly the Seize the Initiative stunt for 3 SP could be overwhelming. It’s a nice idea though, but maybe for 4 or 5 SP?
Alternatively how about this for more of a defensive warrior:
Novice: +1 to favoured weapon group. Stand Firm as a free action.
Journeyman: armour penalties for speed reduced by 1; use Taunt/Threaten stunts for 1 SP less.
Master: +2 to favoured weapon group, and +1 to a second group. Armour penalties for speed reduced by 2. Seize the Initiative for 4 SP.
Sorcerer: Gaining your Communication in Mana every time you level beyond 3rd seems excessive. I know that your not trying to power balance the classes, but this could add up to a heap of extra mana by 10th or 15th level. Maybe sorcerers should just get a bonus to Mana equal to their Communication at 3rd and 5th? Or are you assuming that they’d always want to blow the extra mana on the extra damage?!
Wizard: Obviously the direction of this class is mastery of a particular school, but I did like the ability to get a familiar in the previous version! Under the Novice talent it says that the wizard gets the “Magic focus talent” of his preferred school – I assume you mean the focus, with the talent following on at Journeyman?
Racial Talents: A lot of races get +1 to Seeing and Hearing! And they seem somewhat lower in power compared to before. For example, Drow no longer get Summon Darkness. I’m wondering if the Shifter race I posted a little while ago is overpowered compared to these… But the +2 when in shifter form is, of course, only for a limited period.
Right now I’m doing an analysis of the Pathfinder spell list to see how best to convert them and the schools to DA format. I may be gone quite some time!
Vaelorn,
This is pretty fantastic feedback. Thank you so much for taking the time to go through the document in so much detail. It’s very possible I will steal your solution for the Fighter class talent!
Yes, this represents a very conscious downgrade in character power when compared against the original Dragon Hack. The reason for that is once I decided to work within the background-talent-specialization format of the AGE system, I wanted to do a better job of keeping things in line with that power level. That said, there’s no way to stay too close to AGE when you’re trying to hack Pathfinder, which has a different feel and play style entirely. In order to stay true to the source material (Pathfinder) some things have to be over powered verses the base AGE format.
Hitting the balance between the two is still a moving target, but your feedback certainly helps in that regard. I’ll have more to say later, but I wanted to drop by quick and thank you for your in-depth look at the new Dragon Hack. I have to get over to your site soon and take a look at all the great stuff you’re doing. Thanks again!
Your welcome! I’m enjoying reading all these cool ideas! I had a thought about “guidelines” for racial talents, which is something along the lines of:
Novice: the basic physical perks of the race, e.g. +1 to a test or two, a weapon group etc.
Journeyman: the “classic” racial power, e.g. “fey step” for eladrin, “elven accuracy” for elves, “summon darkness” for drow, “dragon breath” for dragonborn etc
Master: an enhanced version of the J power.
That way just “being an elf” would not be overpowering but there is still scope for players to develop a character in a racial direction. Of course, the shifter and changeling profiles I just posted on my site don’t follow that guidance at all! But I think for those races their powers are part of their basic makeup.
And steal whatever you need! If I get the chance I’ll post some initial thoughts on the PF spells and DA this weekend…
Me again… I was looking at the Druid and Ranger class talents and was wondering how to differentiate the animal companion part. Here’s what I came up with – don’t know how useful it is but thought I’d throw it out there!
Druid / Novice: You gain the Novice degree in Animal Training. However, you can designate a single animal that you train as your totem animal. The special bond you have with your totem animal allows you to issue commands to it without speaking, as long as you are within 50 yards. You are always able to sense its general condition, no matter the distance. Your totem animal also grants you +1 to Willpower (Faith) tests. In addition, if you gain the Journeyman degree in Animal Training you can add your totem animals’ Willpower to your Mana. With the Master degree in Animal Training, you can train your totem animal to gain +1 in Willpower or Cunning, instead of Dexterity or Strength.
Ranger / Journeyman: You gain a degree in Animal Training. However, you can designate a single animal that you train as your animal companion. When tracking and hunting with this animal you gain +1 to Perception (Tracking) and Perception (Hearing) tests. In addition, if you gain the Journeyman degree in Animal Training you can train your animal companion to fight with you. When you are both adjacent to an enemy you can gain either +1 to attack rolls or +1 to defense. You can change which bonus you get each round by commanding your animal companion. With the Master degree in Animal Training you can train your animal companion to gain +1 Constitution instead of Dexterity or Strength, and it gains 10 Health.
My group has been playing using your v.1.3 and we like it, it keeps the simple AGE mechanic and allows us to play in a more D&D environs. We accepted that characters start out with a few advantages over normal DA characters, an extra couple of +’s, focuses and a talent or two but found that this hasn’t caused much in the way of balance issues over all. The Pathfinder/D&D settings are more high fantasy than Dragon Age and it’s okay that the characters reflect that.
The key thing is that the 1.3 version of Dragon Hack changes as little a possible of the system and retains DA’s clean, simple, and mostly balanced character build and development. Basically you’d substituted the DA world specific backgrounds with ones that fit Pathfinder/D&D, made a few adjustment for new races and left everything else alone. It works, at least for us.
When I saw there was a newer version I was hoping for more of the same, maybe with some new specializations and such, but after reading through v.1.75 I was disappointed that you chose to change this path. What I see now is a more convoluted and complicated system of character creation and development that is trying to make the DA *system* more like Pathfinder rather than bringing more of the Pathfinder setting inline with the DA system. I don’t see the point. As you’ve said they are two different game systems with very different design philosophies. This new version already feels like you’re trying to square the circle, and you haven’t even gotten to Specializations yet.
I don’t want you to get the wrong idea, I think you’ve done a great job with a lot of this, I just think you’re over-solving problems that aren’t problems but are really opposing design philosophies. My advise, for what it’s worth, is to not change character creation as you’ve done with this version but instead go back to your earlier work keeping the Racial modifiers you’ve developed and create more Pathfinder style Backgrounds, Focuses, Talents, Specializations, etc. Basically K.I.S.S. (Keep it simple stupid – not saying you or anyone is stupid, it just the acronym…)
For things like multi-classing the DA system has no restrictions on what Focuses you can choose and if you remove the class restrictions on Talents and let players develop along whatever lines they choose you pretty much have multi-classing already. For the bigger differences such as the Class Powers, those can be handled by creating individual Talents players can take.
For example:
The main difference between a Warrior an Rogue is some Talents, potential Specializations and the Backstab. So rather than create some convoluted Thievery Talent just remove the class restrictions from the the Talents, keep any other restrictions, and create a Backstab Talent.
The Backstab Talent:
~ Novice (as Rogue Backstab 1st Level)
~ Journeyman (As Bluff)
~ etc.
You can do the same thing with the Mage class. The big difference is the Mage training so follow the above and:
The Magic Training Talent
~ Novice – You can now use magic with all the same benefits and restrictions as the Mage. You now have Mana and Spell Power and may choose one Spell.
~ Journeyman – You may choose 1 new Spell
~ etc.
The Warrior doesn’t have any special Powers as much as he has more HPs and lots of weapon Talents, so theres not much to do here if you want to become a Warrior as a second class except start taking weapon, armor training and other Warrior restricted Talents.
I’ll say it again, you’ve done a great job here, just consider what it is you like about the DA system and why you’d rather be playing it than Pathfinder and don’t fall into the trap of trying to mix oil and water.
It’s interesting you think that v1.75 is more complex. I would say that it’s more complete, what with the new backgrounds and everything. One of the great features of Dragon Age is the Talent system, and all that v1.75 does is use that system to apply some PF/D&D flavour. So the Wizard Class Talent is a specialisation taken at level 1 that gives a mage the classic PF/D&D features of a spell book, school mastery and so on. The racial based backgrounds (like Wood Elf etc) provide more defined races than Dragon Age, and the optional racial talents are again just an overlay on top of the basic character creation. (And in effect the Novice level just collects all the traits into one place.)
So when you say “create more Pathfinder style Backgrounds, Focuses, Talents, Specializations” isn’t that what Josh has done?
Regardless, I’d be interested in what you did to run the system! Did you convert any PF/D&D adventures? Any standard monsters? Any hints or tips?!
Vaelorn,
Well, this may be a little difficult to explain because it’s as much of a design issue as a specific Talent or Class one.
My take on the AGE system is that they made a choice to place all character types into three basic classes (Warrior, Rogue, Mage) and then personalize them using Backgrounds and a choice of Talents, Focuses, and finally Specializations. This keeps the system simple but flexible. Pathfinder/D&D doesn’t really work this way.
As you said Josh is creating new Pathfinder style Backgrounds, Focuses, andTalents, but he’s coming at it in a way that I believe are counter to the AGE development philosophy.
To get a more Pathfinder feel all you really need to do is unlock some Talent class restrictions and add some a few more specific Talents and Spells that cover things not in the DA canon. But when I say adding new Talents, etc. those new Talents need to be created to match the current Talent paradigm. What I mean by this is that it follows the RAW definition of what a Talent is in game terms – “Your character has areas of natural aptitude and/or special training…” PG1 pg35. If you look no Talent gives you another Talent or Focus only enhances them or gives a specific effect. Classes on the other hand give powers and define which Talents you can choose from but what Josh has done is make Talents that are actually Classes. Why is this a problem? Because it will likely break the system over time buy muddling the Talent system. And when it comes down to it, its the AGE system that makes this game fun to play so in my opinion it’s best to make as few changes a possible.
For example: You don’t really need a Ranger or Thief *Class*. You can make a Ranger or Thief from any of the classes by merely removing class restrictions from the current list of Talents and choosing those Focuses and Talents that best describe the character you desire.
~ Ranger – start with Rogue or Warrior class, Just choose Focuses such as: Animal Handling, Natural Lore, Tracking etc. Choose Talents such as: Animal Training, Scouting, Dual Weapon style etc.
~Thief – Rogue or Warrior Class, choose Focuses such as: Deception, Evaluation, Legerdemain, Lock Picking etc. and Focuses like: Thievery etc.
You would choose Warrior or Rogue as your base class depending on the type of Ranger or Thief you see you character as; Is your Thief a sneaky backstabbing SOB? Choose Rogue so you get the Backstab Power, or are you an in your face brute? Choose Warrior and get all those armor and weapon Talents. You can even make a Thief of Ranger staring with the Mage class, only you’ll have to sacrifice a lot of you’re potential Mage specific Talents and Focuses to do it. You can go the other way as well. Want a Thief that uses Magic? Take the Magic (x) Focus then either Create a Mage Training Talent, or just remove the class restriction on the current Magic Talents and once they do they can spend Talent choices to buy spells from that Focus. This is basically what multi-classing would do and you don’t change any mechanic, only open up choices. It’s self balancing because since you don’t get more Talent/Focus choices you have to give up something to get something.
Another example: A Cleric. A cleric is basically a warrior that uses spells of a divine nature. DA doesn’t have “Divine” spells per say but you can create or re-skin some easily enough. So start with a Warrior, or even a Rogue or Mage, and create and take the Magic *Devine* Focus then either and spend Talent choices to buy spells from that Focus.
I guess what I’m getting at is that you can create the feel of all the different Pathfinder classes without having to change the AGE character creation and development. All you need to do is remove some restrictions, add a few setting specific Backgrounds, Talents and Spells.
As for racal bonuses and such DA races were included in Backgrounds only because the setting is so specific. I think that these should be separated from the backgrounds, like they are in v.1.3, but not made into Talents. The Talent mechanic does not lend itself to the types of racial abilities listed. I mean either an Elf sees/hears better or he doesn’t it doesn’t develop over time, nor should you have to buy a racial ability. Either you have special abilities because of your race or you don’t.
Darn lots of grammar errors… should have proofread better…
Greg,
I didn’t have time to respond to your original post, and I really shouldn’t do you the discredit of responding now because I don’t have time for a thorough answer at the moment, either, but in short: I disagree.
The reason I changed direction is precisely because I thought the original hack, Dragon Hack 1.3, was too complex. My intent was to fix that and make Dragon Hack more like AGE than like Pathfinder, which is why I went with making the design elements work within the background/talent/specialization paradigm of the original game. I, like you, adore AGE precisely for its simplicity. Dragon Hack wasn’t actually made for me, it was made for my players who were more used to running high-powered campaigns in DnD and Pathfinder, and wanted a written rule to back up the fluff of “Hey, I’m a Ranger” and “I’m a Druid.”
If it was up to me, the group would just have grabbed the AGE Freeport backgrounds Chris Pramas wrote for Kobold Quarterly and played the straight Dragon Age rules in a different campaign setting.
That said, your comments that the original Dragon Hack is less complex then the new approach are confusing to me. That’s because the old Dragon Hack created subsystems that had to be bolted on top of the original rules. The every odd level “class power traits” and race traits were something outside the system and needed a whole additional set of rules for each class. You can look farther back in my website for posts were I “leveled up” DH 1.3 class traits through 10th level to see how unwieldy they can get at higher levels.
I meant for the new system to work within the AGE system by following almost the same steps of character development as in the basic Dragon Age game. My mantra was “Use what’s already there” instead of creating something new. (Case in point, the Race Talents are in the optional-rules section of the book, and were only added because it was a request. If you read back through my thoughts on developing them here on the website my initial response was exactly: “why would a character become more like its race as it advanced in level?”)
Your ideas for a Magic Training Talent, and Backstab talent, are good ones, and that’s certainly a solid approach one could take for making AGE more Dungeons and Dragon-ey. It’s just not the approach I took.
Anyway, I do appreciate your opinion, and it’s great to hear that your group enjoyed the original Dragon Hack. With everything I have going on right now, it’s going to be a while before I get back to refining and completing the work on the final Dragon Hack 2.0 rules. When I do, it will use the system as presented in 1.75, though, just with more stuff such as specializations and spells. I’m sorry that’s not the way you would like to see it develop, but for all the reasons I wrote above, and have written about before here on the site, I think it’s what’s best for Dragon Hack.
Thank you for taking the time to add your thoughts to the process.
- Josh
Well it was probably me that was keen on the racial talents, but the goal was not to make characters more “elvish” or “halflingy” or whatever! The Novice degree was intended as a placeholder for all the standard racial powers; the other degrees were to allow characters to develop or explore the nature of their race. For example, the Shifter background on my blog (http://vaelorn.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/shifters/) gives the character their basic power at Novice and allows them to get better at it if they wish. But they don’t have to – they may invest their development in other ways. It could be that the racial talents themselves need altering but I think the basic idea is sound. (My idea was also more of a nod to 4th edition D&D – with its racial paragon paths and feat chains – than Pathfinder, so YMMV!)
And yes, you could very easily gain a lot of flexibility in character creation by allowing any choice of starting talent, so a “striker” rogue could take a weapon talent, a “ranger” warrior could take Animal Training and so on. With the Divine Gift talents as described in Kobold Quarterly 18 you could handle paladins etc with little difficulty, clerics would be mages with a divine gift and maybe a limitation on allowed spells etc etc. But one of the features of PF and D&D is the class system and all the connotations that go with it: saying “Vaelorn is an elven ranger” is a more powerful statement than “Vaelorn is a warrior who took the Tracking talent”, IMHO.
I don’t know if you read the Green Ronin forums, but classless variants of DA are much discussed there!
@Vaelorn,
My comments were not meant to be disparaging to the idea of racial talents as presented as an optional rule in the 1.75 playtest. I know we’ve talked about how they could work in the comments here on the site before, and while I was hesitant to use them for the reasons I outlined above, I’m not sure there’s a better solution within the AGE format. Just so we’re clear, it was good input which is why they’re there in the first place.
@GregfromCanada
I think I’ve figured out why your comments have puzzled me so in the last few days. The real crux of it is that in the midst of your comments about how you don’t like the change of direction seen in the latest playtest you describe a pretty simple system of changes that could be made to the AGE system core (such as class abilities as talents/removing restrictions on talents) to make it more open ended. And while they are great ideas — they’re not Dragon Hack. Version 1.3 had none of those features, and that’s what was throwing me off. What you’re describing certainly is not what I’ve done in version 1.75, but it also wasn’t what I did in 1.3. So I don’t understand if you’re saying 2.0 should head in the direction you suggest, or be more like 1.3, which also is not like what you’re suggesting. Do you understand my confusion?
One thing I would suggest (which Vaelorn mentioned) is looking through the darpg forums at Green Ronin’s website. There are a ton of great hacks for the AGE system there, including a classless system that comes pretty close to what you described in the comments above. Maybe one of those system conversions would be more to you and your players liking. Also, I would encourage you to fully flesh out and write up your thoughts about a more open-ended framework for AGE and present it for comment and review there. I’m sure other darpg players would appreciate your insights.
Thanks again.
@Josh: I didn’t take any of your comments as being disparaging! My comments were a reply to GregfromCanada. Maybe I should figure out how to drive this blog thing properly!
@GregfromCanada: I’d second Josh’s suggestion that you have a go at writing up your ideas – the more the merrier!