Some thoughts on the rules

[breschau]

I've been going through the rules and have some general comments that don't seem to belong anywhere else...

Overall, I like the adaptation of the 2d6 resolution system, especially coupled with multiple attacks (which fit with a one-minute round nicely) - fighters don't do a ton of extra damage on any given attack, but they do get to attack more often. One thing which is of concern to me however is it seems the bonuses grow too quickly for combat designed on a 2d6 scale. I'm not so concerned about the class-based bonuses fighters get - they need to choose to split it up for a decent chance to hit on a lot of attacks or plunk it all down in one to be guaranteed to get one hit. However, the bonuses for strength seem to powerful - it is something that they get on every attack. While a +3 or higher is pretty unlikely, a +2 will be seen from time to time. And +2 on a while bunch of attacks makes the odds of hitting pretty darn good.

I think it would be sensible to require characters to split that bonus up through all their attacks just like level-based bonuses are. Either that or go to a mechanism similar to those of the original D&D rules where only a +1 bonus is possible.


The other thing I'm running into is the spell-casting mechanism. I like avoiding the wizard being a one-charge wand at first level, but the rolling to cast a spell gives the possibility of not casting any spells at all. I think a reasonable house-rule would be a guarantee that the first time you cast a spell it will go off - you still need to roll, but if you get a failure the first time you cast it it still goes off. (A more powerful option would be to allow the spell to go off no matter what, where failure indicates the spell vanishes - in such a case the odds would need to be reduced a little...)

[Jason Vey]

Both of your houserules are valid--one will power up the wizard, the other will power down the fighter. Using both together, in the same sense, could threaten to violate the balance of the game. Personally, I feel that fighters should have pretty darn good odds of hitting whenever they swing. It's what they do.

And wizards already stand to grow to become the most powerful characters in the game. I don't think it's unreasonable that they suffer a chance of failure when casting spells. If you want to remove the chance of losing all spells, I'd suggest a counter-houserule: wizards and clerics only forget spells on a roll of 2. Any other failure is just that: a failure, but the spell still remains to use later.

[breschau]

Good point on the potential to overpower spellcasters. I guess my main concern there is being a 1st level wizard with but a single spell - and failing to cast it at all. Weeping and gnashing of teeth ensues...