Fourth Edition Reborn

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Dungeons & Dragons was the first tabletop roleplaying game, and is still one of the most popular. It popularized and pioneered the concept of a band of wide-eyed adventurers delving into an underground labyrinth crawling with deranged monsters, riddled with sadistic traps, and laden with priceless treasures; a concept which dominates the tabletop gaming industry to this day. D&D has many iterations, called Editions, each substantially different in both writing and rules. Each edition has its own strengths and weaknesses, and its own fan-base.

Currently, the fifth Edition of the game in development. It looks good, and I'm looking forward to it. However, the fourth Edition will be sorely missed, and I'm not ready to stop playing it any time soon ...

Enter Fourth Edition Reborn (or FER) - my attempt to continue supporting the game long after it is abandoned by its creators.The game will be a sort of "sequel" to Fourth Edition, meaning that it will take the Fourth Edition rules, improve on them, describe them in a whole new way, rebuild the content from the ground up, create a whole new implied setting, and present them as a new game that gives proper credit to its roots.

Why am I doing this? Because ...

Fourth Edition was a solid game filled with great ideas and concepts, but it was also deeply flawed. This new project will iron out many of the kinks, making the game better all round.
Fourth Edition will soon no longer be supported. FER will allow people to easily play the game - and new people to get into the game - long after it goes out of print.
Fourth Edition was expensive, and only available in hardcover format. Magic Sword will be free and digitally distributed, which will make it more accessible.
Fourth Edition was hard on third party publishers, making them pay royalties to produce Fourth Edition content. FER will be completely open, so third parties can make content for it as they wish.
Fourth Edition was incomplete: there were many gaps which needed to be filled in. FER will fill these gaps.


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gk7jTI3RjhWtJoBPQZFjSkMxuC177RQMAj1ml8tAL6A/edit#

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Major updates. I have been working on the core math that will be used as a structure, and feedback would be highly appreciated.

[Amechra]

Out of curiosity, are you still using Magic Sword as the name, or is that being scrapped?

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Out of curiosity, are you still using Magic Sword as the name, or is that being scrapped?

I might use it again, but for now, I will not. I think its a bit bland.

[Zelkon]

Bump, and I'm totally in on this project. Weaponmaster is a clumsy name, though, and I'm not a huge fan of bounded accuracy. And I can't stress this enough: HIT RATE NEEDS TO BE MORE THAN 50%!

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Some general comments, in no specific order.

Weaponmaster seems fine. Not sure why you felt the need to change it from the tried-and-true Fighter though. Either way, Weaponmaster might not apply to all archtypes under that tag. Guardian specifically doesn't seem to be an expert with weapons, at least conceptually.

Rogue is fine, but I'd change Beguiler to Trickster or something similar, to avoid confusing 3.5 fans who expect illusion magic.

Why is a Wizard path named Scholar? It seems odd, given that, traditionally, most Wizards are scholars.

Templar and Warlock are much to specific conceptually to fit well alongside your other more generic base classes. They seem like path options in their own right, and then you have additional path options layered on top of them. They stand out, and not in a good way.

Marshal seems like it could be rolled into Weaponmaster. I don't know why a Marshal can be a skirmisher, but not a Rogue or a Weaponmaster. It seems that those classes could easily eat the Marshal and take its things.


******

I always like Bounded Accuracy, but you need to watch your numbers when you use it. Tactical Advantage becomes a little to good when it stacks, and makes up for ten levels worth of bonuses. In fact, the lack of a limit to stacking advantages and disadvantages makes that the likely focus of the game. Four melee allies can give each party member a +6 bonus to their attack rolls: the equivalent of 30 levels within your bounded accuracy.

The 50% success rate as a baseline is terrible. There's no other way to say it. You're telling a player that they will fail at roughly half the things they try to do. Urgh. I wouldn't want to play that game. I expect my character to be competent in his chosen field, not 50% successful.

Your hit point math doesn't scale properly. The hit point formulas will not allow a character to be killed in 6 attacks reliably, if you follow the damage formula. It starts at 4-5 attacks. Also, all characters have approximately equal hit points and damage? Your class features had better be very distinct.


******

Finally, you're still using 4e terms and rulings that are protected by the GSL. I'd love to see you guys make some progress with this, but you really need to watch your wording on things like Bloodied, Immediate Reaction, Immediate Interrupt, Minor Action, and so forth. Check here for the GSL, since we can't really discuss it on these forums. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/welcome)

[vasharanpaladin]

Bump, and I'm totally in on this project. Weaponmaster is a clumsy name, though, and I'm not a huge fan of bounded accuracy. And I can't stress this enough: HIT RATE NEEDS TO BE MORE THAN 50%!

It is more than 50%. Average is around 60% for all roles and levels. :smallcool:

EDIT: And on that note, my personal beef: If proficiency bonuses are to be a thing, they need to be uniform across the board. No arbitrary decisions as to what is +3 or +2, everything has the same bonus to-hit. I have never seen an axe or a hammer used because of this! :smallfrown:

[Zelkon]

Templar and Warlock are much to specific conceptually to fit well alongside your other more generic base classes. They seem like path options in their own right, and then you have additional path options layered on top of them. They stand out, and not in a good way. Cleric is too specific? User of dark magic is too specific?


Marshal seems like it could be rolled into Weaponmaster. I don't know why a Marshal can be a skirmisher, but not a Rogue or a Weaponmaster. It seems that those classes could easily eat the Marshal and take its things. No. The Warlord is much too unique of an archetype. You would have to make completely different class features



******

Finally, you're still using 4e terms and rulings that are protected by the GSL. I'd love to see you guys make some progress with this, but you really need to watch your wording on things like Bloodied, Immediate Reaction, Immediate Interrupt, Minor Action, and so forth. Check here for the GSL, since we can't really discuss it on these forums. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/welcome)

My own 4e clone says far away from these terms, and so should you the GSL is a deadly weapon that we need just the right armor for.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Cleric is too specific? User of dark magic is too specific?

I'm referring specifically to Templar and Warlock here. If you have only one Wizard class that covers enchanters, elementalists, diviners, illusionists, sorcerers (and entire separate class), and all other just arcane classes, I feel that having an entire one of your core six classes devoted to pact-based magic with a dark theme is...restrictive by comparison, and hugely so.

Templar is more of an issue because the word templar implies a martial feel that the Cleric doesn't need to have. I don't see why the more general Cleric wasn't used, as it allows you to make subsets not just on doman, but also on specific role )Paladin, Templar, and so forth). I think using Templar is, again, restrictive.

Basically, with six classes and paths within those, you probably want to aim for wider concepts and tailor them more specifically within the classes themselves (via path selection). Currently some classes are conceptually wide, and others are conceptually tight. That creates an odd class dynamic.



No. The Warlord is much too unique of an archetype. You would have to make completely different class features

Fair enough. But all skirmishers are Warlords? Avengers are Warlords? The concepts currently in the Warlord category don't feel like leaders, or even really Warlords. They seem like they were put there to fill space (except Knight, which definitely belongs). I'm disappointed that Rogue and Weaponmaster don't have ranged skirmish specialists, for example...that's where I'd expect to see such a class.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

I plan on sleeping soon, and then revising the document tomorrow.

Planned revisions include:

Rethinking the Wizard paths.
Rethinking the Marshall paths.
Upping the success rate to 65%.
Reducing everyone's damage.
Moving away from 4e terminology.
Limiting Tactical Advantage to three degrees.

Sound good?

[vasharanpaladin]

I plan on sleeping soon, and then revising the document tomorrow.

Planned revisions include:

Rethinking the Wizard paths.
Rethinking the Marshall paths.
Upping the success rate to 65%.
Reducing everyone's damage.
Moving away from 4e terminology.
Limiting Tactical Advantage to three degrees.

Sound good?

Success rate's already at 65%. You're not making much change here, unless you're planning on making accuracy be less of a thing in general?

[Zelkon]

Success rate's already at 65%. You're not making much change here, unless you're planning on making accuracy be less of a thing in general?

*Cough* a+5 attack bonus will hit a defense of 15 half the time.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

*Cough* a+5 attack bonus will hit a defense of 15 half the time.

Actually, if it's like traditional D&D (attackers win ties), it will hit 55% of the time. :smalltongue:

Anyway, some things to think about (currently the big two, in my mind). I'd love to hear your thoughts on these:


Number One
Are classes broad, or specific? Currently you have both, and that's not good design. Pick one. Broad concepts leads to class-like paths (like your Wizard and your Weaponmaster), while narrow concepts lead to more specifically flavored paths (like your Warlock). Choose one, because having both pulls your design in two directions. You could also consider having sub-path paths, so your Wizard[Warlock] might be a Wizard[Fey-Path Warlock].

Number Two
Determine who is responsible for what, in what order, and set approximate timeframes for sections of the process. This was, in my mind, one of the biggest failings of the last venture: there was virtually no organization, and trying to build something as large as a game system by community work requires organization. Who makes things? Who checks to make sure the feel of the game is preserved across all the sections? Whose responsibility is it to make sure people are handing in work approximately on time? And so forth.

[Zelkon]

Actually, if it's like traditional D&D (attackers win ties), it will hit 55% of the time. :smalltongue:

Anyway, some things to think about (currently the big two, in my mind). I'd love to hear your thoughts on these:


Number One
Are classes broad, or specific? Currently you have both, and that's not good design. Pick one. Broad concepts leads to class-like paths (like your Wizard and your Weaponmaster), while narrow concepts lead to more specifically flavored paths (like your Warlock). Choose one, because having both pulls your design in two directions. You could also consider having sub-path paths, so your Wizard[Warlock] might be a Wizard[Fey-Path Warlock].

Number Two
Determine who is responsible for what, in what order, and set approximate timeframes for sections of the process. This was, in my mind, one of the biggest failings of the last venture: there was virtually no organization, and trying to build something as large as a game system by community work requires organization. Who makes things? Who checks to make sure the feel of the game is preserved across all the sections? Whose responsibility is it to make sure people are handing in work approximately on time? And so forth.

Wizard=Learn spells.
Sorcerers=Have spells.
Warlock=Barter or steal spells.

Therefore, wizards have schools, warlocks have power sources. Equally broad.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Wizard=Learn spells.
Sorcerers=Have spells.
Warlock=Barter or steal spells.

Therefore, wizards have schools, warlocks have power sources. Equally broad.

If Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock were all base classes, I'd agree. Wizard, however, seems to have eaten Sorcerer completely, and I'm not sure why it hasn't eaten Warlock as well and just become the Arcanist base class.

In short, as someone who has dabbled and studied RPG design theory heavily, I'm having trouble seeing why those six classes were chosen as the base classes: it seems like the number needs to be raised, or the classes chosen need to be re-vamped. I'd also be interested in seeing those choices explained, along with why other, equally-if-not-more valid choices were dropped.

I mean, if I had to pick 6 classes to represent all arch-types within the Arcane/Divine/Martial split? I'd probably go with these:

Fighter: Covers all aspects of martial power. Paths such as Guardian, Dervish, Armsmaster, Berserker, and so forth.
Rogue: Covers all aspects of martial grace. Paths such as Skirmisher, Assassin, Monk, Thief, and so forth.
Cleric: Covers the spell-casting divine. This is where the Domain clerics would live, along with things like the Favored Soul.
Templar: Covers the militant Divine. Things like the Paladin, the Crusader, and the Avenger would fit here.
Arcanist: Here we have the traditional casters. Arcanists would encompass Warlocks, Sorcerers, Wizards, and other primary casters.
Spellsword: Here we'd have the militant casters: bards, Swordsages, hexblades, duskblades, and the like.


This is if you want a small number classes. Of course, each of those sub-categories could be a class in and of itself, so you have to decide if you want to differentiate things like the differing Warlock types in power selection, in a sub-Path "Focus" selection, or by making them each their own separate class.

You could also go with a three-fold set-up, pinning a class for offense, one for defense, and one for utility/speed. That might look like this:

Fighter: As above.
Guardian: Takes over the defensive fighter role.
Rogue: As above.

Cleric: Becomes the divine "utility" caster. Support, healing, buffs, and the like.
Avenger: Channels the might of the gods in offensive ways.
Templar: As above.

Wizard: Studious, multi-purpose spells. Support.
Invoker: Innate raw power. Eats the Warlock and the Sorcerer.
Spellsword: As above.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

How would it be if we went even more broad. Players simply picked a role, and then built a class from a wealth of options within that role. For newer players who might find this intimidating, we could compile class-like sets of options.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Sorry to double post. I just remembered something unrelated that I wanted to say.

As for organization, I plan on doing the bulk of the work, especially on the crunch. Due to a recent development in my life, I have much more time on my hands than I did before, which means I will be able to do significantly more writing than last time. If I set my mind to it, I assure you that there will be a noticeable step forward almost every day.

I cannot do this completely alone. Things I may need help with include: Making sure the text is as readable, concise, and user-friendly as possible; producing all of the powers, feats, monsters, traps, class features, and other content; writing fluff; balancing crunch; making sure the project won't get in legal trouble; and keeping things easy to pick up for inexperienced players.

Constructive feedback, encouragement, and second opinions are always welcome.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

How would it be if we went even more broad. Players simply picked a role, and then built a class from a wealth of options within that role. For newer players who might find this intimidating, we could compile class-like sets of options.

This offers a TON of potential freedom, although it increases your workload exponentially, as you have to make sure that all the potential combinations are balanced to each other.

It's a very different system, as you wouldn't have class-specific powers or anything.

A simpler way might be to do away with "classes," and allow users to combine paths, similar to what Legend and a few other games do. This limits the potential combinations somewhat, and still allows you to have path-specific powers. Of course, you're basically making mini-classes here, so it's still a ton of work.

You might also want to consider using role AND power-source as a limiter. It reduces the combinations somewhat (although maybe you could select two power sources if your combined abilities draw from both of those), and have powers limited to things like "Pure Arcane," "Pure Martial," and "Martial/Arcane," with your power sources indicating which powers you're capable of taking. That would allow you to tailor specific abilities to specific combinations, and sort of build multiclassing into the system at a base level.

[Zelkon]

How would it be if we went even more broad. Players simply picked a role, and then built a class from a wealth of options within that role. For newer players who might find this intimidating, we could compile class-like sets of options.
I'm generally against this idea. Classes are very elegant and I'm more of "the more classes the merrier" type, so that each fills a specific role that doesn't depend on any other class. Flavor is lost in classless systems to me.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Everything said has been taken into account. Working on revisions now.

We should also work on developing an aesthetic and implied setting. I admit that the one I came up with last time was lacking - generic and limiting at the same time. I have another in mind: psychedelic 70s fantasy meets Conan meets Spelljammer. For the aesthetic, we could borrow from prog rock album covers and 70s fantasy novels and comics. The setting could be something epic and high-magic, but also kind of insane, like Planescape or Spelljammer. There could also be a streak of Conan running through the thing, with corrupting magic and powerful melee characters.

How does this sound?

[Zelkon]

Everything said has been taken into account. Working on revisions now.

We should also work on developing an aesthetic and implied setting. I admit that the one I came up with last time was lacking - generic and limiting at the same time. I have another in mind: psychedelic 70s fantasy meets Conan meets Spelljammer. For the aesthetic, we could borrow from prog rock album covers and 70s fantasy novels and comics. The setting could be something epic and high-magic, but also kind of insane, like Planescape or Spelljammer. There could also be a streak of Conan running through the thing, with corrupting magic and powerful melee characters.

How does this sound?

The awesomeness just 'sploded my head.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

We should also work on developing an aesthetic and implied setting. I admit that the one I came up with last time was lacking - generic and limiting at the same time. I have another in mind: psychedelic 70s fantasy meets Conan meets Spelljammer. For the aesthetic, we could borrow from prog rock album covers and 70s fantasy novels and comics. The setting could be something epic and high-magic, but also kind of insane, like Planescape or Spelljammer. There could also be a streak of Conan running through the thing, with corrupting magic and powerful melee characters.

How does this sound?

Unusual, definitely. Possibly hilarious campy, possibly excellent. Likely both. :smallbiggrin:

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Glad to see the reception to the setting idea is good. How about a fungus-themed core race?

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Glad to see the reception to the setting idea is good. How about a fungus-themed core race?

Less good. Core races should be flexible. Setting-specific races should be evocative of the setting and flexible (hence why Warforged and Shifters are cool for Eberron, but Kalashtar are less well received).

A fungus-themed race is niche, and, while it could be very cool in certain campaign settings, I'd save it for something other than core. Pick something slightly more fantasy-standard. Remember: you're trying to make something in the spirit of 4e here, and most 4e games were probably standard fantasy, or some flavor thereof.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Less good. Core races should be flexible. Setting-specific races should be evocative of the setting and flexible (hence why Warforged and Shifters are cool for Eberron, but Kalashtar are less well received).

A fungus-themed race is niche, and, while it could be very cool in certain campaign settings, I'd save it for something other than core. Pick something slightly more fantasy-standard. Remember: you're trying to make something in the spirit of 4e here, and most 4e games were probably standard fantasy, or some flavor thereof.

Good points, but bare in mind, Fourth Edition included races specific to the setting on the core as well: Dragonborn and Teiflings. There is always someone at the table who wants to play the freak, and I like the idea of fungus people a lot more than Dragonborn.

[The Troubadour]

Major updates. I have been working on the core math that will be used as a structure, and feedback would be highly appreciated.

I'll be honest: as a 4th Edition fan, I'm not sure about this. It seems that instead of simply ironing out the kinks (such as the need for Expertise feats and feat taxes in general, classes like the Binder, scaling issues, things like that), you're trying to rebuild the game from the ground up. A laudable effort, sure, but I'm not sure it's advantageous for me as a 4E orphan.

Also: I strongly dislike "bounded accuracy". A 10th-level Fighter should have an easier time hitting a 1st-level Orc - and I believe it's good to use a lower-level challenge against the PCs every once in a while.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

I'll be honest: as a 4th Edition fan, I'm not sure about this. It seems that instead of simply ironing out the kinks (such as the need for Expertise feats and feat taxes in general, classes like the Binder, scaling issues, things like that), you're trying to rebuild the game from the ground up. A laudable effort, sure, but I'm not sure it's advantageous for me as a 4E orphan.

Also: I strongly dislike "bounded accuracy". A 10th-level Fighter should have an easier time hitting a 1st-level Orc - and I believe it's good to use a lower-level challenge against the PCs every once in a while.

The reason we are rebuilding it from the ground up is because that is the only way the venture will be legal to distribute commercially.

The point of Bounded Accuracy is that the first level orc becomes a "minion" to the 10th level fighter. He can kill the orc in one hit, and it only takes out a small fraction of his health on a hit, so he can fight several at a time.

Bounded Accuracy ENCOURAGES the introduction of lower or higher level threats, because the lower level party will be able to hit them at all, and the higher level party will still be challenged.

In Fourth Edition, one couldn't throw a bunch of 1st level orcs at a 10th level party, because it would be an extremely one-sided fight. They needed a bunch of 10th level minion orcs. This erases the problem.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Good points, but bare in mind, Fourth Edition included races specific to the setting on the core as well: Dragonborn and Teiflings. There is always someone at the table who wants to play the freak, and I like the idea of fungus people a lot more than Dragonborn.

While true, both Dragonborn and Teiflings are born from incredibly popular fantasy lore: Dragons and Devils are definitely much-loved monsters. Sentient mushroom people? I think there's much less room for that in the "monsters people love and want to play" bin.


I'll be honest: as a 4th Edition fan, I'm not sure about this. It seems that instead of simply ironing out the kinks (such as the need for Expertise feats and feat taxes in general, classes like the Binder, scaling issues, things like that), you're trying to rebuild the game from the ground up. A laudable effort, sure, but I'm not sure it's advantageous for me as a 4E orphan.

It's advantageous in that it CAN be produced. The GSL is very restrictive, as I don't believe it even allows you to reword things: thus, you cannot fix rules or feats, nor alter any existing part of the system.

[Zelkon]

The reason we are rebuilding it from the ground up is because that is the only way the venture will be legal to distribute commercially.

The point of Bounded Accuracy is that the first level orc becomes a "minion" to the 10th level fighter. He can kill the orc in one hit, and it only takes out a small fraction of his health on a hit, so he can fight several at a time.

Bounded Accuracy ENCOURAGES the introduction of lower or higher level threats, because the lower level party will be able to hit them at all, and the higher level party will still be challenged.

In Fourth Edition, one couldn't throw a bunch of 1st level orcs at a 10th level party, because it would be an extremely one-sided fight. They needed a bunch of 10th level minion orcs. This erases the problem.

Foresight, my own 4e clone, is going to use a sort of monster system that allows easy scaling of monsters to allow a level appropriate enemy of many types of all levels. So, with your orc example, a 1st level orc operates as a standard, but when you scale the orc to level 5 (a solo becomes an elite in 5 levels, a standard in 10, and a minion in 15), it changes to the mook rules and uses the appropriate bonus. The bookkeeping of this is solved with the use of a GM sheet, which is basically a character sheet for the DM.

Also, may I propose the idea of sliding initiative. Each round, your initiative increases by its sliding value. It's also used to break ties. The warlord takes good advantage of this, and the elf gains it as a trait.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Foresight, my own 4e clone, is going to use a sort of monster system that allows easy scaling of monsters to allow a level appropriate enemy of many types of all levels. So, with your orc example, a 1st level orc operates as a standard, but when you scale the orc to level 5 (a solo becomes an elite in 5 levels, a standard in 10, and a minion in 15), it changes to the mook rules and uses the appropriate bonus. The bookkeeping of this is solved with the use of a GM sheet, which is basically a character sheet for the DM.

Also, may I propose the idea of sliding initiative. Each round, your initiative increases by its sliding value. It's also used to break ties. The warlord takes good advantage of this, and the elf gains it as a trait.

Your 4e clone? I would very much like to see this. Please shoot me a link.

Also, how would you handle minions for low-level characters?

[Zelkon]

Your 4e clone? I would very much like to see this. Please shoot me a link.

Also, how would you handle minions for low-level characters?

It's not exactly done, with all the specifics needing to be worked out. Imagine if you knew the basics for all the mechanics, most of the math, but didn't have any powers. I'm a slow worker, but I do have a thread with most of my progress (I stopped work for like 2 months though.)


EDIT: Here (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?640967-Foresight-RPG-a-4e-heartbreaker-Uncut-unedited-unformatted) it is. Wow, a good three months ago. Haven't worked much sense then, actually. Got some races and a beginning combat system with almost nothing different.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

It's not exactly done, with all the specifics needing to be worked out. Imagine if you knew the basics for all the mechanics, most of the math, but didn't have any powers. I'm a slow worker, but I do have a thread with most of my progress (I stopped work for like 2 months though.)


EDIT: Here (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?640967-Foresight-RPG-a-4e-heartbreaker-Uncut-unedited-unformatted) it is. Wow, a good three months ago. Haven't worked much sense then, actually. Got some races and a beginning combat system with almost nothing different.

It looks ... fine. Closer to 4e than Magic Sword is, perhaps. I can't say I'm impressed, but it is only a very rough and incomplete outline, so I am open to changing my mind.

[Zelkon]

It looks ... fine. Closer to 4e than Magic Sword is, perhaps. I can't say I'm impressed, but it is only a very rough and incomplete outline, so I am open to changing my mind.

It's actually far more different than 4e once you get to the class system, which is obviously the meat of the project, and the actual interaction in combat, which will hopefully be much more dynamic and certainly different. Other than that, It'll obviously fix the main old problems like expertise and the like. Also, specific ability scores are used only for skills (except for your tertiary, but that's a wholly different thing), you may pick your primary and secondary stats, and may gain a tertiary by making one stat a weak stat. Races don't get ability bonuses, and abilities range from -1 to 5 (at first level. You may increase your stats over time). It's also streamlined in some parts to make room for better mechanics. The document is around 6,000 words long so far, so a good 1,500 longer than the one you see.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

It's actually far more different than 4e once you get to the class system, which is obviously the meat of the project, and the actual interaction in combat, which will hopefully be much more dynamic and certainly different. Other than that, It'll obviously fix the main old problems like expertise and the like. Also, specific ability scores are used only for skills (except for your tertiary, but that's a wholly different thing), you may pick your primary and secondary stats, and may gain a tertiary by making one stat a weak stat. Races don't get ability bonuses, and abilities range from -1 to 5 (at first level. You may increase your stats over time). It's also streamlined in some parts to make room for better mechanics. The document is around 6,000 words long so far, so a good 1,500 longer than the one you see.

Wow. I only have 3,619 words so far, plus the 7,000-ish text of Magic Sword, which I basically won't be using. I hope that I am able to borrow from your project. You can certainly borrow as much as you want from mine.

I should get to work. I plan on fleshing out the math and combat system first, and then starting on what has replaced the class system. If anyone would be willing to help with any of that, or the setting, it would be much appreciated.

[Zelkon]

Wow. I only have 3,619 words so far, plus the 7,000-ish text of Magic Sword, which I basically won't be using. I hope that I am able to borrow from your project. You can certainly borrow as much as you want from mine.

I should get to work. I plan on fleshing out the math and combat system first, and then starting on what has replaced the class system. If anyone would be willing to help with any of that, or the setting, it would be much appreciated.

I'll probably be pirating some of the 4ER "class" mechanics and putting them into actual classes. Neither of us have much as of right now, so hopefully they can use each other as stepping stones.

EDIT: Also, Foresight is built from the ground up, so everything has to be explained, and it's built to be commercial (even if it's free, It'll be formatted like a PHB), so that adds to the word count. You put a bit of an intro in and the jump to actual content.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Anyone want to have a Google+ meeting about the game today?

I'm open to doing this basically any other time as well, but today is convenient.

[Zelkon]

Sure, although today for me ends in a few hours (it's 7 EST). How long we talkn' here? (length wise and time wise)

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Sure, although today for me ends in a few hours (it's 7 EST). How long we talkn' here? (length wise and time wise)

Maybe an hour, tops. Just a quick discussion about goals and setting and stuff.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

This (https://plus.google.com/115052207789261024447/posts) is my Google+ profile.

[Zelkon]

Did I miss something? When are we doing this?

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Did I miss something? When are we doing this?

I just did a meeting about the setting, art, writing, and tone with Daemonhawk. It didn't amount to all that much, other than that the default implied setting will sort of be "Conan in Wonderland + Lovecraft" - psychedelic high fantasy meets surreal horror and pulp adventure.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

I'm ill and I must sleep soon, so I won't be doing any writing tonight. I will, however, spout some ideas for the four roles, and how they can be implemented.

Striker
The Striker role relies very much on Tactical Advantage. For each degree of Tactical Advantage possessed by the Striker, its attacks deal an extra 1d6 points of damage. As the Striker levels up, the amount of extra damage per degree is increased.

Striker attacks generally have a single target, and tend to have conditional bonuses to damage. This means that the Striker is much more effective if he is clever in positioning, and is able to thing ahead.

Defender
Enemies near the Defender have one degree of Tactical Disadvantage on all attacks that don't include the Defender as a target. He also has many close-range powers that restrict enemy movement, and lots of defensive self-buffs.

Perhaps the Defender is able to intercept attacks targeted at his allies, taking the blow instead.

Supporter
The supporter has a ranged Encounter power that allows an ally to spend a Vitality Point, and regain a slightly greater number of hit points than they otherwise would. This is a minor action.

Almost all of the Supporter's powers grant allies temporary buffs of all kinds, but they also have an arsenal of single-target debuffs.

Controller
I'm too tired to write more. Will edit in stuff in the morning. Goodnight.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

I have done significant work on the Defender, and more is coming. Feedback would be HIGHLY appreciated.

[Yakk]

You might want to split the design document away from the playtest document.

Area damage's impact on combat speed needs to be factored in. Time to evaluate power use needs to be factored in -- number of rounds, and number of seconds, per combat should both be in your design document.

You should work out the implied power curve of your design decisions (HP/damage/accuracy/defence) -- my preferred power curve mathematics for a simple situation is "number of enemies you could defeat in a row". So someone with twice the HP and twice the damage can defeat 4 enemies in a row on average. Someone with +5 attack and +5 defences can defeat 3 enemies in a row on average. Etc.

This may be useful for calculating XP encounter budgets. Two critters can defeat 3 single opponents in a row, 3 can defeat 6 in a row, 4 can defeat 10 in a row, and 5 can defeat 15 in a row -- n(n+1)/2 the pyramidal numbers, or roughly n^1.7 or so.

Factoring in how encounter/daily powers (with their one-off damage boost) changes these curves is interesting (at least to me).

Another interesting question is how much variance in damage you should do, which impacts how much variance there is in combat length.

I'm not sure if I like the idea of having only 4 "classes".

The +/-2 modifier on rolls doesn't seem all that streamlined. Counting levels of advantage/disadvantage, then multiplying by 2, then adding it to a die roll -- not all that streamlined. Not sure how to make it better, admittedly.

[Razanir]

Dwarves have no body hair? How will my dwarf women be bearded, then?

I agree with the comments about hp. It should vary between classes

You claim 4 attack types, but I only see two (melee and ranged)

These two comments are changes I still don't understand the need for in regular 4e:
1) Why squares? Just keep it as feet. The only benefit I see in explicitly using squares is that it ports better to metrics
2) Why are fortitude, reflex and will flat numbers like AC? The character is using his reflexes to dodge the dragon's breath. Not the dragon trying to predict how the character will react

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Dwarves have no body hair? How will my dwarf women be bearded, then?

I agree with the comments about hp. It should vary between classes

You claim 4 attack types, but I only see two (melee and ranged)

These two comments are changes I still don't understand the need for in regular 4e:
1) Why squares? Just keep it as feet. The only benefit I see in explicitly using squares is that it ports better to metrics
2) Why are fortitude, reflex and will flat numbers like AC? The character is using his reflexes to dodge the dragon's breath. Not the dragon trying to predict how the character will react

Sorry. I will reply to the rest of the feedback later. There were just two things I wanted to comment on: the two points listed in the above post.

1) ... I don't know. I think I should change that.
2)Because they were in Fourth Edition, and it was easier. It amounts to the same thing, so why does it matter who does the rolling?

[willpell]

I was never terribly interested in 4E's mechanics, but there are a number of innovations in the fluff which appeal to me (note: deleting four alignments and nearly the entire pantheon is not an "innovation"). Races like Daeva, Dvati and Shardminds sound immensely cool, and consolidating planes into the Feywild, Shadowfell, Astral Sea and Far Realm (I may be missing a few but it's still far more streamlined than what came before), most especially tying most or all Aberrations to the Far so that their general trend to look absurdly bizarre becomes a feature rather than a bug, was a stroke of genius. It also happens to be the edition which Jared von Hindman, my personal hero, got paid to rave about and do paintings for, and of course the Giant did an excellent send-up of it in DDTS. So color me distantly interested in this project.

[Razanir]

Sorry. I will reply to the rest of the feedback later. There were just two things I wanted to comment on: the two points listed in the above post.

1) ... I don't know. I think I should change that.
2)Because they were in Fourth Edition, and it was easier. It amounts to the same thing, so why does it matter who does the rolling?

1) Woo!
2) Fair enough. My other counterargument is that rolling against AC is for all or nothing, but rolling against Ref in particular is typically for half. Just seems like an odd dissimilarity to me


I was never terribly interested in 4E's mechanics, but there are a number of innovations in the fluff which appeal to me (note: deleting four alignments and nearly the entire pantheon is not an "innovation"). Races like Daeva, Dvati and Shardminds sound immensely cool, and consolidating planes into the Feywild, Shadowfell, Astral Sea and Far Realm (I may be missing a few but it's still far more streamlined than what came before), most especially tying most or all Aberrations to the Far so that their general trend to look absurdly bizarre becomes a feature rather than a bug, was a stroke of genius. It also happens to be the edition which Jared von Hindman, my personal hero, got paid to rave about and do paintings for, and of course the Giant did an excellent send-up of it in DDTS. So color me distantly interested in this project.

Oh, the other thing you should definitely revert from 4e is cutting those alignments out. Or at least add CG and LE back in. Also, I might steal the 4e plane ideas for my PF campaign, then add elemental planes

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

I would like to note now that I don't plan on including alignments. In Fourth Edition, they barley existed, not having any mechanical significance. Why include them at all?

[Zelkon]

"Goddamnit. Huston, they've gone back to feet. Over."
"See what you can do about it, Sergeant. Over."

If you can't tell, I hate having everything in feet.

[Ialdabaoth]

"Goddamnit. Huston, they've gone back to feet. Over."
"See what you can do about it, Sergeant. Over."

If you can't tell, I hate having everything in feet.

I use "paces", where a "pace" equals 5 feet.

[Zelkon]

I use "paces", where a "pace" equals 5 feet.

Hmmm... I like this.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Hmmm... I like this.

As do I. It shall be so!

[Ialdabaoth]

Just throwing this out there again, in case anyone forgot:

http://open4e.wikia.com

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Sorry 'bout the absence. I was feeling rather uninspired. Back now. I'll do some writing today.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

I'm doing a bit of concept work for monsters.

[Felorn]

Bump

This thread needs to be revitalized :smallsmile:

[Felorn]

Just throwing this out there again, in case anyone forgot:

http://open4e.wikia.com

That site is alright. But I don't think it properly captures 4e's feel

[Ialdabaoth]

That site is alright. But I don't think it properly captures 4e's feel

*nod* I'm shooting for something between 4E and 5E, to be honest - I think my ideal mix would be 4E's modularity and tactical balance + 5E's simplicity.

[Zelkon]

*nod* I'm shooting for something between 4E and 5E, to be honest - I think my ideal mix would be 4E's modularity and tactical balance + 5E's simplicity.

Only took him two years to get a reply. :smalltongue:

As the years move on and obviously nothing's come of this, I'm beginning to feel like we won't get a genuine 4e Heartbreaker for quite a while.

It's my first time on this board in probably over a year and it was really nostalgic to see this thread up top again. Crazy.

[Ialdabaoth]

I'm more and more thinking that the correct approach is to just build Roles and an AED stack on top of 5E.

My current model looks something like this:

All Classes:
Level 1 - gain two Class Feats and one Racial Feat, can perform one Racial Feat and one Class Feat per short rest.

Non-Caster Classes:
Level 1 - one At-Will and two Rank 1 feats, can perform two Rank 1 feats per short rest.
Level 2 - one At-Will or Skill training, +1 to one Ability
Level 3 - one Rank 2 feat, can perform two Rank 1 and one Rank 2 feat per short rest.
Level 4 - one At-Will or Skill training, +1 to one Ability
Level 5 - one Rank 2 feat, can perform two Rank 1 and two Rank 2 feats per short rest.
Level 6 - one At-Will or Skill training, +1 to one Ability
Level 7 - one Rank 3 feat, can perform two Rank 1, two Rank 2, and one Rank 3 feat per short rest.
Level 8 - one At-Will or Skill training, +1 to one Ability
Level 9 - one Rank 3 feat, can perform two Rank 1, two Rank 2, and two Rank 3 feats per short rest.
Level 10 - one At-Will or Skill training, +1 to one Ability
Level 11 - one Rank 4 feat, can perform three Rank 2, two Rank 3, and one Rank 4 feat per short rest.
Level 12 - Rank 1 feats become an At-Will feats, +1 to one Ability.
Level 13 - one Rank 4 feat, can perform two Rank 2, two Rank 3, and two Rank 4 feats per short rest.
Level 14 - one Rank 1 (at-will) feat, +1 to one Ability.
Level 15 - one Rank 5 feat, can perform three Rank 3, two Rank 4, and one Rank 5 feat per short rest.
Level 16 - Rank 2 feats become an At-Will feats, +1 to one Ability.
Level 17 - one Rank 5 feat, can perform three Rank 3, two Rank 4, and two Rank 5 feats per short rest.
Level 18 - one Rank 2 (at-will) feat, +1 to one Ability.
Level 19 - one Rank 6 feat, can perform three Rank 4, two Rank 5, and one Rank 6 feat per short rest.
Level 20 - Rank 3 feats become an At-Will feats, +1 to one Ability.


Caster Classes:
Level 1 - one At-Will, one Rank 1, and one Daily feat, can perform one Rank 1 feat per short rest and one Daily feat per long rest.
Level 2 - one At-Will or Skill training, +1 to one Ability
Level 3 - one Rank 2 feat, can perform one Rank 1 and one Rank 2 feat per short rest, and one Daily feat per long rest.
Level 4 - one At-Will or Skill training, +1 to one Ability
Level 5 - one Rank 3 feat, can perform one Rank 1 and one Rank 2 feat per short rest, and two Daily feats per long rest.
Level 6 - one At-Will or Skill training, +1 to one Ability
Level 7 - one Rank 3 feat, can perform one Rank 1, one Rank 2, and one Rank 3 feat per short rest, and two Daily feats per long rest.
Level 8 - one At-Will or Skill training, +1 to one Ability
Level 9 - one Daily feat, can perform one Rank 1, one Rank 2, and one Rank 3 feat per short rest, and three Daily feats per long rest.
Level 10 - one At-Will or Skill training, +1 to one Ability
Level 11 - one Rank 4 feat, can perform one Rank 2, one Rank 3, and one Rank 4 feat per short rest, and three Daily feats per long rest.
Level 12 - Rank 1 feats become an At-Will feats, +1 to one Ability.
Level 13 - one Daily feat, can perform two Rank 2, two Rank 3, and two Rank 4 feats per short rest, and three Daily feats per long rest.
Level 14 - one Rank 1 (at-will) feat, +1 to one Ability.
Level 15 - one Rank 5 feat, can perform three Rank 3, two Rank 4, and one Rank 5 feat per short rest, and three Daily feats per long rest.
Level 16 - Rank 2 feats become an At-Will feats, +1 to one Ability.
Level 17 - one Daily feat, can perform one Rank 3, one Rank 4, and one Rank 5 feat per short rest, and three Daily feats per long rest.
Level 18 - one Rank 2 (at-will) feat, +1 to one Ability.
Level 19 - one Rank 6 feat, can perform one Rank 4, one Rank 5, and one Rank 6 feat per short rest, and three Daily feats per long rest.
Level 20 - Rank 3 feats become an At-Will feats, +1 to one Ability.

[ReturnOfTheKing]

Finds awesome idea in thread.

Realizes it's a necro.

Gets depressed :smallfrown: