D&D 4e 4th CE: We Can Rebuild It, We Have the Technology [Archive]

Dacia Brabant

2016-02-23, 12:29 AM

This sounds like a phenomenal project, it also sounds like a full time job to rebuild.

I sure hope so. :smallsmile:

But that aside, when you say core are you refering to rebuilding the player options presented in the players hand books 1-3, and extensions would be things like "XYZ power" or "hero's of XYZ" ?

The idea, shamelessly stolen borrowed (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20434254&postcount=87) from Yakk (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20438227&postcount=96), is to have Core be specifically the stuff that's optimal within the system, with Extension the stuff that needs improvement. So, just as an example, Warlocks would be Core, Hexblades would be Extension and might be handled by making its Pact Blade a feat or an alternate class feature, while Binder is going to need a complete rebuild.

So it's not so much the PHB123=Core and Heroes of XYZ=Extension, although in practice much of what's optimal as far as classes go is probably going to be from the PHBs just because of how much support they tended to get. Much, but not all: Battlemind, for example, is one that needs some work so it can do its job before level 7, while Executioner is pretty close to where it should be.

Do you have a vision for the balance point for this reworking (I have sadly not gotten to play much 4e anymore, my friends all like pathfinder)? Do you want to change how damage scales or how effects are applied or how effects function or interact?

There are people here who know the math for this a lot better than I do, but yes, the point would be where the PCs are keeping pace with monsters of their level+3, which should amount to a reasonable challenge for them with fights lasting about 4 to 8 rounds depending on the desired toughness of the encounter.

There are ways to deal with the "math fix," like having characters get a per-tier bonus to attack rolls independently from the feats they take, and that would need to be looked at. As far as effects, I think those would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

In I. 2. B. and C. Is that question in a. and b. From just above it?

Yes, that's correct, my apologies if that was unclear.

I will have to read my dm guide for 4e again to help with the DM parts. I have only ever been a dm for pathfinder.

Thanks! Glad to have you aboard. :smallsmile:

Do you have any ideas for the questions you post in II. A. B. C. Or D.?

I do have some, I just wanted to get the questions out there first as a way to get the ball rolling.

I know the thread you're talking about and this has definitely caught my interest. I've got plenty in mind on this topic, so let's see if I can keep this too the point.
...
As far as suggestions go, I'll likely be focused on classes, powers, and system mechanics.
Cool! Glad to have you aboard, too. :smallsmile:

First off, name wise we're pretty close to "Four Core" with is close enough to "four score" to set up my pun sensors. (Not that I consider that a bad thing.
Hehe, that's no worse than one idea I had of calling it FourCE.

I like your ideas so far, especially your idea of a tool kit. I'd never thought of that before, but if done right it would certainly go a long way toward making the game more modular. I'll be sure to make a note of them under new material.

Ursus Spelaeus

2016-02-23, 05:46 AM

This is relevant to my interests!

I've actually been working on my own 4E-hack (off and on) for a couple years now. If anybody in this thread would like to take a look at it and give me some opinions, I would be most appreciative. I'd love to help you guys out with this project while I'm at it and compare notes.

UrielAwakened

2016-02-23, 10:14 AM

DragonBaneDM

2016-02-23, 11:21 AM

Looking at it from the DM side of things, the math for running the game has changed as more options have been presented and builds have been developed.

First of all, monster math has changed drastically since Monster Manual 1. I personally use the MM3 on a business card math, but I know that my DM uses an even tougher system made for optimized parties. I was really excited to see the Monster Vault using MM3 math to revamp popular MM1 monsters.

Also, I've seen a few different tables for skill and trap DCs and damage. Speaking of skills, I never felt like the original "X successes before Y failures" setup for skill challenges ever stuck, especially when it was tacked on as a Thievery only option before the end of trap entries. I really did prefer the Act/Event-Based setup you found in Cairn of the Winter King and the desert one from LFR.

Finally, I don't know if the math for treasure parcels has ever been picked apart by a player, but that might be worth looking into, especially if it means rewarding magic items based on number of players in the party instead of a flat 4 items per level.

Ursus Spelaeus

2016-02-23, 11:30 AM

Also, I've seen a few different tables for skill and trap DCs and damage. Speaking of skills, I never felt like the original "X successes before Y failures" setup for skill challenges ever stuck, especially when it was tacked on as a Thievery only option before the end of trap entries. I really did prefer the Act/Event-Based setup you found in Cairn of the Winter King and the desert one from LFR.

Ever use Stalker0's Obsidian skill challenges? I've used variants of that to good effect in the past.
Basically instead of counting failures I just give the party three rounds or so to roll the required number of successful skill checks. That one works pretty well.

AMFV

2016-02-23, 11:35 AM

I would certainly be interested in assisting with reading and playtesting. I don't know how much I could assist with the actual crafting (being that I've never played 4E), but I could give the perspective of somebody who hasn't played that system into the mix, which could be something useful if you guys are looking to attract new meat as well as ex-fourth players.

Dacia Brabant

2016-02-23, 03:16 PM

Thanks everyone for your input, and for your interest! I'll continue to update the posts with your suggestions.

I think the point system for powers is a really good idea for the Extension side of this. I'll get going on drawing up a list of conditions that can be applied to them and see how they might balance out.

Surrealistik

2016-02-23, 03:53 PM

Kind of interested.

I have instituted house rules here which, in my view, circumvent a lot of flaws and limitations with the base 4e system: http://www.myth-weavers.com/showthread.php?t=199598

nikkoli

2016-02-23, 03:54 PM

The biggest things that need fixed are A) The math, and B) The grind.

Combat needs to go faster, and you need a way to correct the weird feat taxes that exist so they're no longer necessary.

I would also completely decouple ability scores from attack rolls. Have them only influenced by level. Ability scores should instead influence damage and riders, and I believe that's enough of a role that you'll still remain in similar roles without being useless if you decide to multiclass to a strange combination of classes.

So are you suggesting changing attacks to be bases off of a THAC0 (2e) or BAB (3.X) or proficiency (5e) system or the 1/2 level that is already in 4e?
I personal think that ability scores are important because its a characters measure of their physical and mental abilities. Having those tied to attacks makes sense to me. How well you fight is a combination of training (levels &feats) and raw talent (Ability scores). Someone using strength to swing a sword at the orc horde, or dexterity to stab just the right spot between a bulettes plates, or a sorcerer using their charisma to channel their inner magic.

Also multiclassing needs revamped. It's way too difficult with very little payoff unless you're specifically multiclassing for some OP synergy.

I agree with you here, as it stands its clunky and bothersome, and the hybrid material is much more useful than the multiclassing material I have found.

I like the one guy's idea of a power-creation system, where you'd essentially get "points" at each level that you could use to create custom powers. Maybe you get 3 points for your level 3 encounter, for instance. 2 points upgrades the damage to 2[W] and then another point makes it slow. This would scale up at a reasonable rate, letting you get stronger powers as you level as normal.

You would still have pre-built powers using this rule that you could select as well, of course.

Would this allow stuff to scale like 3.x magic vs martial and get the insane disparity? I agree that a build-your-own-powers system would be much easier than writing 100 powers for each class, but there would have to be a lot of nitpicking on how everything will interact with everything else coming from the same ability.

UrielAwakened

2016-02-23, 04:22 PM

So are you suggesting changing attacks to be bases off of a THAC0 (2e) or BAB (3.X) or proficiency (5e) system or the 1/2 level that is already in 4e?
I personal think that ability scores are important because its a characters measure of their physical and mental abilities. Having those tied to attacks makes sense to me. How well you fight is a combination of training (levels &feats) and raw talent (Ability scores). Someone using strength to swing a sword at the orc horde, or dexterity to stab just the right spot between a bulettes plates, or a sorcerer using their charisma to channel their inner magic.

You would use half-level, like normal. The game is already about bounded accuracy, no reason to artificially inflate that with a mechanic that does nothing but limit your ability to build a character.

Why does my strength influence how accurate I am? Strength should influence how much damage I do with a sword attack, and how effective my ability riders are, but not whether I hit at all. I get that people like to think of HP as a bunch of misses until one hit connects, but this re-imagining makes more sense, and it allows greater flexibility upon character creation. I think within the confines of 4e, accuracy is just too important to allow to be compromised in character creation, and since it's so important it severely limits creativity.

The Rogue will still do the most with sneak attacks. The wizard will still hurl better fireballs than anybody else. Hell, if it were up to me I'd ditch ability scores altogether. They're archaic and stale, but baby steps.

Would this allow stuff to scale like 3.x magic vs martial and get the insane disparity? I agree that a build-your-own-powers system would be much easier than writing 100 powers for each class, but there would have to be a lot of nitpicking on how everything will interact with everything else coming from the same ability.

No. Nothing like that. More like, comparing Wizard vs. Fighter powers, for instance, where are there similarities? You take those effects and use them as a baseline for what's "standard" for a power of that level. Then you can translate that into a point-buy system for powers. I think Dailies would still have to be pre-built, because they're sort-of special-effects that should transcend what's normal for a PC to be able to do. That or you have a much more elaborate point system for dailies.

I can come up with an example later tonight when I get home.

Ever use Stalker0's Obsidian skill challenges? I've used variants of that to good effect in the past.
Basically instead of counting failures I just give the party three rounds or so to roll the required number of successful skill checks. That one works pretty well.

I'll go even further and say that skill challenges are one of 4e's weakest aspects. It's slap-dash at best and very little guidance is given on how to implement it.

I have a philosophy that skill challenges have to end in a tiered reward that varies depending on your success or failure on a continuum. There should never be a binary skill challenge outcome. If there was, it wasn't really a skill challenge, just a lot of skill checks.

Another thing I forgot: Ritual Casting. It's a virtual vending machine. Scrap it entirely or else rework it so participation is needed to get desirable results. EDIT: Maybe using a system like the FATE Fractal? The FATE Fractal is basically what 4e's skill checks and ritual casting were trying to be but didn't realize it yet.

nikkoli

2016-02-23, 05:24 PM

You would use half-level, like normal. The game is already about bounded accuracy, no reason to artificially inflate that with a mechanic that does nothing but limit your ability to build a character.

Why does my strength influence how accurate I am? Strength should influence how much damage I do with a sword attack, and how effective my ability riders are, but not whether I hit at all. I get that people like to think of HP as a bunch of misses until one hit connects, but this re-imagining makes more sense, and it allows greater flexibility upon character creation. I think within the confines of 4e, accuracy is just too important to allow to be compromised in character creation, and since it's so important it severely limits creativity.

The Rogue will still do the most with sneak attacks. The wizard will still hurl better fireballs than anybody else. Hell, if it were up to me I'd ditch ability scores altogether. They're archaic and stale, but baby steps.

As i have always seen it explained on this situation strength would be your ability to control exactly what the weapon is doing , where it's hitting and how hard you hit. Dexterity would be your accuracy in hitting and precision for gettin to soft spots. Constitution for hitting does not make sense to me in the slighest (sorry con defenders). Intelegence for magic would be your understanding and how you apply it. Wisdom for magic would be your connection to the force granting you the powers and how well you can channel them. And charisma would be your inner strength pouring into the magic. Sorry if that's a bit of a rant.

IF ability scores were to be taken out it would kind make all the classes feel very similar because they don't have that fluff of this is why I am good at this. Yes there are the "I'm arcane" or "I'm martial" but I think without a few layers of mechanics & fluff (i.e. ability scores and what they mean), oversimplification can make it all bland.

Dacia Brabant

2016-02-23, 07:16 PM

Kind of interested.

I have instituted house rules here which, in my view, circumvent a lot of flaws and limitations with the base 4e system: http://www.myth-weavers.com/showthread.php?t=199598

I was hoping you'd stop by. :smallsmile:

I'll go ahead and add your house rules to the list of resources.

ETA: On decoupling ability scores from attack bonuses, I think that could help to open up customization and end the notion that you have to be either X, Y or Z race to play a particular class or else end up behind the curve. Since we're already committing to fix the math, I don't think it would be too hard to take that into account.

Shimeran

2016-02-23, 08:42 PM

I get the desire to remove ability mods to attack, as it does seem like clash of skill. That being said, it does make those rolls sort of the odd ones out if those mods are applied skill rolls.

What I would suggest is constraining the ability modifier range and and keeping it constrained at high levels. It's a bit annoying that heroic types get worse outside an increasingly of their focus as they're supposed to be becoming more epic. If anything, I'd think part of their epicness should be the ability to apply their strengths more broadly. The "all stats go up, but not faster enough to matter save for these 2" approach isn't all that appealing.

What I'd tentatively propose is capping ability scores at 18. Maybe allow for score improvements, but keep the caps so high level heroes become more well rounded. The second thing I'm inclined to propose is make the modifiers something like a "ability score / 3". That gives you a significantly narrower spread of about +3 vs +5. That tones down the impact on attacks without eliminating it, which may make for a decent compromise.

On another note, since powers seem to be getting the most interest of my previously broached topics, maybe we should start discussing replacement terminology and formatting. Maybe doing tentative rewrite of the basic attack block could be a good place to start. I've got a few thoughts to that end.

The term "powers" as a catch all for special actions is something that kicked off in 4e, so it may be worth changing. Maybe "techniques" could be a serviceable replacement? It should cover "I know how to do something just so" as well as "I have special abilities".

For the "weapon" component, I'd actually strongly recommend sticking a bit closer to the more freeform selection in Gamma World. Being able to use a signpost for a weapon is liberating. :smallsmile: I'd even be inclined to nick some of the tag mechanics from Dungeon World as that makes nicely customizable weapons

I might put up a tentative version of what I'm thinking tomorrow. I've got more ideas floating around, but I'm trying not to flood the thread or let myself go too far abroad.

Dacia Brabant

2016-02-23, 11:45 PM

Please, by all means, flood away. That's what this is for. :smallsmile:

I hear what you're saying about having higher-level characters be better across-the-board than they were at lower level, and that's something we can and should look at, but I also think it makes sense that they would get increasingly specialized as they got further along their chosen paths. The more you practice at something, the better you get--theoretically anyway--but you're also limited by natural factors, including talent.

I'm a huge fan of Morrowind, a 14-year-old game at this point, and one thing about it that really makes sense to me is having both your stats and your skills operate on the same numerical expression of 1-100, and having it so that each skill can't be trained above its associated stat. It can still increase above it, essentially reaching beyond one's natural limitations, but only by actually using it. I'm not saying this is a system we should be going to, but if we're going to start imposing caps I wonder if it wouldn't be better to put the cap on the secondary stats (attack bonus or skill bonus) rather than on the primary ones (ability scores).

I haven't crunched the numbers on this, but what if instead of saying that your ability modifier adds to your bonuses on a d20 roll to beat a given DC (and that's what defenses are), instead of that having the associated ability score be your maximum bonus without outside help--either from temporary/situational bonuses or from gear?

So let's say you have a Rogue with a dagger and an 18 starting Dexterity. It would take until level 28 (not 30, I forgot Rogues get a built-in +1 to hit with daggers) before you reached +18 from 1/2 level +proficiency, or 22 if we're talking 1/2 level +proficiency +1/tier math fix, or level 21 if we put the ability mod back into the calculation as well. That's a long way from level 1, and out of the +10 maximum post-racial modifier to a single ability score under the current system (boosts at 4/8/11/14/18/21/24/28 and a possible +2 at 21) you'd need to put half of it into Dex to keep from capping out--and if you put all of it into Dex you'd cap out at level 28. Edit: you'd actually need to put 8 points into it to keep from capping out, but at least that would allow you to not be forced into taking an Epic Destiny that grants a further +2, and in fact that would not be favorable. One who started with a 14 Dex would still cap out at 28 even with maxing it out, but that's still a long way from level 1. Edit2: the math doesn't work if you put the ability mod back into the calculation. It could work without it though, assuming ability scores still increase as one goes up in level.

As long as there's either enough in the way of other bonuses coming in, or the monster defenses are recalibrated, then even a highly specialized character at the beginning of their adventuring career would have plenty of time to broaden themselves before they needed to start pushing their favored ability past its limit.

I don't know if this is feasible, or even preferable, I'm just thinking out loud here.

Shimeran

2016-02-24, 07:17 AM

I don't mind specialization, but I'm not found of the bigger bonuses approach to doing so. This combines poorly with the binary nature of most checks. It's not just that you're better in your specialty, it's that when not using it you've got an increasing chance of outright wasting you turn as a failed roll has no effects.

For example, in the current set up characters with a racial bonus can get +5 over the baseline +0. That gives the specialist half the chance of a wasted turn for anything the baseline has even odds at (25% vs 50%) or half again the rate of success (75% vs 50%). That's very noticeable but manageable. Let that grow by say +3 more (6 focused increases by epic) and we're looking at a 40% spread, which starts edging into the range where it's difficult to set a DC that's useful to both. A coinflip for the baseline is a mere 10% chance of failure for the specialist, which makes rolling more of an annoyance than suspenseful. That's all before taking other bonuses into account.

In short, I think the larger issue is that a higher bonus spread at later levels can lead to non-participation at those levels. ("Stealth / Diplomacy check? Why bother.") I think we really need a way to mitigate that so characters can continue to contribute outside their specialty, even if less so than specialist.

I also get you points about practice and natural limits. However, to me that's got more of a heroic tier feel. By epic, you're wrestling gods. Unless you're taking a Charles Atlas approach, you're pretty far beyond other natural limits at that point. It feels weird to me to have what your born with suddenly start mattering more at those levels, unless said birthright is something like divine heritage.

Ursus Spelaeus

2016-02-24, 07:32 AM

What I'd tentatively propose is capping ability scores at 18.

Are we set on keeping the 3-18 scale?

Maybe allow for score improvements, but keep the caps so high level heroes become more well rounded. The second thing I'm inclined to propose is make the modifiers something like a "ability score / 3". That gives you a significantly narrower spread of about +3 vs +5. That tones down the impact on attacks without eliminating it, which may make for a decent compromise.

How compatible do we want this to be with normal 4E? If we are going to want to use later 4E's monsters and adventures with this I imagine we should want the math to be fairly close.

Bruno Carvalho

2016-02-24, 08:20 AM

A 4E Heartbreaker? Count me in!

Nifft

2016-02-24, 08:21 AM

How compatible do we want this to be with normal 4E? If we are going to want to use later 4E's monsters and adventures with this I imagine we should want the math to be fairly close.

Or provide an easy conversion.

For example, using 5e's proficiency-at-level scaling in place of 4e's add-your-level scaling ought to be a pretty easy drop-in, which allows monsters to be re-scaled just by knowing their level.

Maybe adjust the ability score progression to give points less often, but preserve the "general competence" features. Something like:
- +1 to two different stats at level 5, 15, and 25
- +1 to all stats at level 10, 20, and 30
... for a total of +3 to all stats, and +6 to two particular stats.

Dacia Brabant

2016-02-24, 10:41 AM

Ursus Spelaeus

2016-02-24, 10:48 AM

Or provide an easy conversion.

For example, using 5e's proficiency-at-level scaling in place of 4e's add-your-level scaling ought to be a pretty easy drop-in, which allows monsters to be re-scaled just by knowing their level.

Maybe adjust the ability score progression to give points less often, but preserve the "general competence" features. Something like:
- +1 to two different stats at level 5, 15, and 25
- +1 to all stats at level 10, 20, and 30
... for a total of +3 to all stats, and +6 to two particular stats.

You could also just straight up add your level to rolls, instead of half-level, and have that subsume ability score progression.

Bruno Carvalho

2016-02-24, 11:07 AM

Ursus Spelaeus

2016-02-24, 11:15 AM

That does not fixes the problem. It doesn't matter if your character adds level, half level, or even zero to all checks. When one character got +5 to a skill due to stats alone and another gains +0, it is hard to balance DC for both. If one is trained, increase his stats, and manage to gain small bonuses from other places, we're talking about a +12 or so against +0.

EXAMPLE:

You want to do a Diplomacy check for 2 characters. Which DC would you use?
1st Character:
10th level, Charisma 22 (+6), Trained (+5), Racial Bonus (+2), Feat Bonus (+1), Level bonus (+5), total +19

2nd Character
10th level, Charisma 11 (+0), Untrained, Level Bonus (+5), total +5

It does not matter how you change the level bonus, the 1st character's skill bonus will be equal to the 2nd character +14 .

You could cut dice modifiers out of the game entirely in favor of an expanded 'advantage' mechanic from 5E (I.E. dice pools) or remove DC's from the equation by using opposed dice rolls. But that would be beyond the scope of a 4E clone.

I think if this is going to work we're going to need to try not to fight the system too much. Understand what 4E is, recognize its constraints, and work within them.
I think we're just going to have to accept that untrained characters with +0 Charisma just aren't going to succeed at tasks that call for diplomacy training and Charisma.

UrielAwakened

2016-02-24, 11:16 AM

Ursus Spelaeus

2016-02-24, 11:34 AM

May I share an idea I've been using for my own 4E heartbreaker?

One of the problems with the NADS is that there's no good reason to double up on Str/Con for tough guys, or Dex/Int for smart agile guys, because you only take the higher of each pairing to determine your Fort, Ref, and Will. Investing all your points into Strength and Constitution leaves you with a weak character.
My solution to Fortitude, Reflex, and Will was to base their bonuses on averages of their pairings.
Fortitude defense, for example is (Str + Con)/2 + Level + 10. So you're encouraged to spread your abilities out a bit more.

I decided to take the same approach with attack bonuses. I decided to include Physical Attack and Magic Attack as derived abilities.
Physical Attack is (Str + Dex + Wis)/2
Magic Attack is (Con + Int + Cha)/2

It encourages players to spread out their abilities.
It keeps everybody roughly on par no matter how they spread their abilities.
Even if you gain an extraordinarily high ability score, you're still roughly balanced with everybody else unless you can also put points into your other abilities.
It's still based on your ability scores so that your combat and non-combat ability don't feel too disassociated.
It has a certain crunchiness to it that appeals to simulationist and optimizer sensibilities.

Your thoughts?

*edit*

There also isn't really a reason to keep "ability scores" as having mods at all. Do away with ability scores altogether, and just keep the mods. I don't have a strength of 18, I have a strength of +4. Simpler, more efficient.
That's basically what I do in mine. Ability scores are +0 baseline and can be raised up to +5 at character creation. The 3-18 scale works if you actually roll 3d6 for abilities, but nobody does that for 4E.

UrielAwakened

2016-02-24, 12:23 PM

May I share an idea I've been using for my own 4E heartbreaker?

One of the problems with the NADS is that there's no good reason to double up on Str/Con for tough guys, or Dex/Int for smart agile guys, because you only take the higher of each pairing to determine your Fort, Ref, and Will. Investing all your points into Strength and Constitution leaves you with a weak character.
My solution to Fortitude, Reflex, and Will was to base their bonuses on averages of their pairings.
Fortitude defense, for example is (Str + Con)/2 + Level + 10. So you're encouraged to spread your abilities out a bit more.

I decided to take the same approach with attack bonuses. I decided to include Physical Attack and Magic Attack as derived abilities.
Physical Attack is (Str + Dex + Wis)/2
Magic Attack is (Con + Int + Cha)/2

It encourages players to spread out their abilities.
It keeps everybody roughly on par no matter how they spread their abilities.
Even if you gain an extraordinarily high ability score, you're still roughly balanced with everybody else unless you can also put points into your other abilities.
It's still based on your ability scores so that your combat and non-combat ability don't feel too disassociated.
It has a certain crunchiness to it that appeals to simulationist and optimizer sensibilities.

Your thoughts?

*edit*

That's basically what I do in mine. Ability scores are +0 baseline and can be raised up to +5 at character creation. The 3-18 scale works if you actually roll 3d6 for abilities, but nobody does that for 4E.

This is an okay idea but I disagree that it should be an average.

If you ditch ability scores and go with mods instead, you can just use the sum and get a pretty great result that isn't too far from what 4e gives you now.

EDIT: Until you start using it for attack scores too. That kind of derails the math.

Ursus Spelaeus

2016-02-24, 12:34 PM

This is an okay idea but I disagree that it should be an average.

Why?

Adding two numbers and dividing by two isn't difficult. And we all have calculator functions on our smart phones.
I'm using Code Academy right now to learn programming so I can eventually make a character creator for my game. That will take care of all the math easily, and once that math is calculated it doesn't have to be recalculated until you level up.

Bruno Carvalho

2016-02-24, 12:59 PM

I, too, prefer ditching Ability scores and using only mods. However, in order to keep this "4E rework" more similar to the actual 4E, I think it is best to keep the scores and honor the tradition.

Ursus Spelaeus

2016-02-24, 01:45 PM

Let's remember all of the sacred cows 4E killed, and why that made 4E great.
If we keep the 3-18 scale, regardless of whether it actually fits in with anything else in the system, for no reason other than the fact that it's always been there, then what have we really accomplished?

Dacia Brabant

2016-02-24, 03:31 PM

I would like to reiterate that the design philosophy of this project is to place all characters on an equal footing from an optimization standpoint, which would then allow everyone at the table to contribute to the group in a meaningful way. I would submit that by taking character balance out of the equation, the main question for players to answer (and for DMs to take into account in creating challenges for the players) becomes group balance and cohesiveness--in other words, group optimization. That, as much as anything, is what differentiates 4E from other editions of the game, and it's what, in response to Dimers' question from the original thread, is worth preserving.

The problem, which I see as two-fold, is 4E didn't go far enough away from previous editions in that it continued WotC's odd mindset of having lots of bad choices mixed in with some really good ones; and that, in choosing a linear system, the designers forgot to take into account the line falling off its target the further along it goes.

The first part of the problem should be easy enough to resolve. With the CharOp guides, we have the resources available to us to trim the fat from the system and get it down to its true core.

The second part I think is going to take a lot of time and effort to answer, and I'm concerned this thread will get bogged down trying to answer it, so I'd like to suggest that we separate that discussion out into its own thread. Would that be acceptable?

UrielAwakened

2016-02-24, 03:54 PM

I, too, prefer ditching Ability scores and using only mods. However, in order to keep this "4E rework" more similar to the actual 4E, I think it is best to keep the scores and honor the tradition.

Why?

We're not making D&D. We're making 4e. Which only kept those things because of nostalgia.

Any effort predicated on a nostalgia basis will fail in the same ways 4e did. We literally can't make D&D again. There's really no point in doing so.

Philemonite

2016-02-24, 06:42 PM

UrielAwakened

2016-02-24, 07:10 PM

Defenses: Why not go 13th Age style and pick middle of X, Y and Z?

What are we (and by we I mean you, because I won't be able to contribute much) going to do about the roles? Splitting Controller into Artillery and Effect is one thing, but are there going to be other changes?

This isn't a bad idea either.

Can we all agree that defense calculation needs a rework? It seems to be a common agreement that SOMETHING needs done to fix Fort/Ref/Will, even if we cannot all necessarily agree on the how yet.

Nifft

2016-02-24, 07:33 PM

I think that if we throw away the assumption that monster attacks go up at 1:1 with level, then we won't need any particular patches for defenses.

Rather, the defense "fix" should be inherent in the monster attack calculations.

Removing the idea that everything goes up with level -- which also allows a removal of the magic gear treadmill -- could fix that.

ThePurple

2016-02-24, 08:13 PM

This is gonna be a big post because I'm basically going over everything said thus far. Also, since someone else has already posted their own slew of house rules, here (https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/2750464/compiled-list-of-general-house-rules) is a list of the house rules that I use.

I believe the biggest "must have" change for this project is a power creation tool kit in place of specialized power lists.

I simultaneously agree with and disagree with you on this. On the one hand, I agree that explicit lists of powers as 4e has traditionally done it are unwieldy and lead to large scale imbalance (often due to individual powers being designed with unforeseen exploitable mechanisms) rather than what it was intended to do (e.g. provide a plethora of equally legitimate options). On the other, I can easily see creating all of your powers, especially if it uses a point based system, being overly complex for new players (which should always be a concern).

In my own rework of 4e, I still focused on having discrete power lists but, rather that having a large number of different powers from which you selected, I focused on having a small number (2-3 per class) that each had different options you could select upon use, in a similar vein to how the some of Martial Essentials classes had their powers work. The best example of this paradigm is the Hunter Ranger's powers: Aimed Shot (ignore/reduce cover/concealment), Rapid Shot (AoE), and Clever Shot (RBA that is subject to player's choice of either slide 2, prone, or slowed s/e) with Disruptive Shot (target immob'd or dazed s/e, at higher levels adds more options).

One of the things I like about this is that it makes it so that power selection is more of a tactical decision you make during combat (e.g. which of my powers/effects is most useful at this time) as opposed to a strategic decision you make during character creation (e.g. which of my powers/effects is going to be most useful in general).

One thing I'd personally love to see is less of a feeling that each archetype needs to be tied to precisely one combat role.

I agree with his sentiment wholeheartedly. My favorite 4e class by leaps and bounds is the berserker barbarian from Heroes of the Feywild specifically because it is both a fully effective striker and a fully effective defender and, even better, can move from one of those roles to the other seamlessly in combat (but limited to only moving from defender to striker).

In my most recent rebuild of 4e (I've gone through like 4 iterations), one of the things I've tried to do is make it so that every class has at least 2 roles that it can fulfill, but with resource limited swapping capability (generally either once/enc like berserker or via consuming an encounter limited class driven resource). Part and parcel with this, I tried to give each role an explicit mechanical function, as opposed to abstract tactical goal, discrete from its power choices, which served to supplement the tactical intention of the role driven class mechanic.

I built Fighter as a striker/artillery (e.g. focusing blows on a single target or using wide, cleaving blows to hit multiple enemies adjacent to you).

On a related note, I'd be really tempted to stick closer to the role breakdown they used on monsters than the pc one. The monster controller role in particular really seems to benefit from not being smashed together with the artillery role. I'd rather let players specialize in one of those over trying to make them do both.

The controller role is probably one of my biggest pet peeves about 4e as a whole. I always felt it was just a clumsy way of trying to give wizard a single role that lets it do everything like it used to in previous editions. In my aforementioned version of 4e, one of the first things I did was separate the controller role (focused on impeding enemies) from the artillery role (focused on dealing damage to multiple enemies).

Why does my strength influence how accurate I am? Strength should influence how much damage I do with a sword attack, and how effective my ability riders are, but not whether I hit at all.

It's for the same reason that full plate armor adds to your AC but doesn't add to your hp. In the real world, armor actually has a tendency to get you hit more because it's cumbersome; it's only useful because it deadens the blow and/or can cause the blow to glance away. As such, a person's strength needs to be factored in insofar as it affects an attack's chances of being absorbed/negated by armor. From a mechanical standpoint, I like ability scores affecting to hit roles mainly because it makes it so that there is a greater level of customization to your end numbers, which is only a problem when the gap between optimized and non-optimized are too large for balance purposes.

Of course, my dream gaming system would actually have heavy armor act in an ablative manner (e.g. heavy armor increases your hit points) in addition to an avoidance manner (to a lesser extent than light armor, of course, for balance purposes).

Hell, if it were up to me I'd ditch ability scores altogether. They're archaic and stale, but baby steps.

My gut reaction to anyone wanting to get rid of ability scores is to immediately disagree, but, as I try to elucidate why exactly I have this reaction, I'm stymied because the only really good reasons I've been able to firmly conceptualize as to why ability scores are a good thing can basically be summed up as "it's a sacred cow" which isn't really a good enough reason to champion them.

About the only decent reason I can figure out beyond the purely emotional arguments is that ability scores which determine ability modifiers allow for visible improvement without instantly applying universal mechanical advantage. In other words, ability scores allow you to know that 13 strength is stronger than 12 strength (and provides some unique advantages therein) without providing all of the bonuses inherent in having an explicitly higher ability modifier.

I think Dailies would still have to be pre-built, because they're sort-of special-effects that should transcend what's normal for a PC to be able to do. That or you have a much more elaborate point system for dailies.

Dailies should definitely be pre-built. A point-buy system for your at-wills and encounters is already adding a lot of work to character creation. Creating an even more elaborate point system for dailies (especially when you factor in daily attacks that last until the end of the encounter or what have you) would compound that greatly.

I'll go even further and say that skill challenges are one of 4e's weakest aspects. It's slap-dash at best and very little guidance is given on how to implement it.

Honestly, I think that Skill Challenges were one of the best things to come out of 4e. The problem is that they did not receive *nearly* the same level of support as the rest of 4e did. There were significant problems with Skill Challenges as initially written, which caused people to stop using them, and so the developers basically wrote them off as a lost cause.

I use Skill Challenges a lot in my campaigns (at minimum, at least 2-3 per level; in one of my games, more than half of the xp for their last level was derived from skill challenges). The secret to using them is to not try and apply a single Skill Challenge mold to all scenarios while simultaneously realizing that, if they're supposed to reward xp and loot in the same manner as combat, they should consume party and player resources in a similar manner (not to mention also encouraging players to perform actions, not just declare skills).

In general, I use two general models for my skill challenges: limited and unlimited skill challenges. Limited skill challenges are basically Obsidian Skill Challenges: failures don't matter; all that matters is just how many successes you've achieved before the limit is reached (generally number of rounds). The number of successes you've achieved determined how well you succeeded and/or how many resources you end up losing in the process (failure should never stop the story). Unlimited skill challenges are more like standard Skill Challenges except they don't end when you reach an arbitrary number of failures; at certain intervals (generally per round), some party resource is lost (generally healing surges, sometimes gold). The players still need to achieve a given number of successes to win, but they have to specifically opt into failure (e.g. run away) if it ends up costing them too much.

Furthermore, Skill Challenges were also handicapped insofar as utility powers were split between those useful for combat (which is the primary conflict engine the game is built around) and those useful for non-combat (which are largely secondary). Skill Challenges would be a lot more interesting if players could actually get powers that specifically modified their performance during a skill challenge in much the same way utility powers modify their performance during combat.

It's for this reason that my homebrew version of 4e creates an additional category of powers that players get access to: skill powers, which can basically be summed up as powers that are only useful for skill challenges.

Another thing I forgot: Ritual Casting. It's a virtual vending machine. Scrap it entirely or else rework it so participation is needed to get desirable results. EDIT: Maybe using a system like the FATE Fractal? The FATE Fractal is basically what 4e's skill checks and ritual casting were trying to be but didn't realize it yet.

My solution to Ritual Casting is pretty simple: I don't use rituals. As I said before, I use a lot of Skill Challenges. What I allow Ritual Casting to do is provide players with the option to literally buy successes on Skill Challenges by spending ritual components (equal to 1/10th of the cost of a magic item of the SC's level) in addition to a few special case rituals (namely, Resurrection and Creating Magic Items, which are rituals that are also skill challenges). It cuts down on bookkeeping (a lot) and speeds up Skill Challenges while adding a bit of tactical/strategic planning to them as well.

In short, I think the larger issue is that a higher bonus spread at later levels can lead to non-participation at those levels. ("Stealth / Diplomacy check? Why bother.") I think we really need a way to mitigate that so characters can continue to contribute outside their specialty, even if less so than specialist.

Actually, I see the problem less about specialization in individual skills and more players accidentally/purposefully designing themselves (or the system encouraging designing themselves) such that they don't have the ability to act in certain scenarios.

One of the design concepts I've been playing around with was based off of my experiences with WoD, wherein the skills are broken down into 3 broad categories (mental, physical, and social) and, at creation, instead of picking from the entire list, you prioritize mental, physical, and social, and then receive different number of skill points to allocate within those categories based upon how you prioritized (e.g. social>physical>mental would get you 11 social skill points, 7 physical skill points, and 5 mental skill points). I would apply a similar conceit to skills to our rebuild, wherein all classes get at least 1 skill choice from each category. For example, a Fighter would get 2 physical skills, 1 social skill, and 1 mental skill trained; a Wizard would get 3 mental, 1 social, 1 physical; a Rogue would get 2 physical, 2 social, 1 mental; etc.

With something like this, you make it much harder for players to not have at least *some* thing they can do during a Skill Challenge. In addition, it makes spending feats for Skill Training more appealing, especially if you're trying to become the omni-social character or something.

As an aside, and because it was brought up in the discussion made in the 4e forums, WoD skills are discrete from ability scores, such that you make an Athletics + Strength check to jump but an Athletics + Dex check to tumble, which is a much better construct in my opinion. At a minimum, I would at least encourage the creation of more feats that allow for stat swapping (e.g. a feat that allows you to use Str for Intimidate rather than Cha).

One of the problems with the NADS is that there's no good reason to double up on Str/Con for tough guys, or Dex/Int for smart agile guys, because you only take the higher of each pairing to determine your Fort, Ref, and Will. Investing all your points into Strength and Constitution leaves you with a weak character.

I had a similar concern, but a completely different solution. Rather than penalizing people for not doubling up (which is kind of what you're doing), I would suggest instead providing a workaround to make it so that doubling up doesn't cripple you.

The best example for this would be creating feats that allow you to change which defense a given stat affects (this does not mean that a single stat would affect multiple defenses so you can't just take a bunch of feats and shift everything onto a single stat). For example, a feat (let's called it "Roll with the Punches") allows you to use DEX instead of CON for Fort defense (effectively making it so that only INT is available to be used for REF). It would provide a way for smart and fast characters to not have junk FORT at a minor but not insignificant cost while simultaneously preventing it from being an uber-combo.

I've got more to say, but I'm 15 minutes late for running a game so I'll come back later and say it.

Shimeran

2016-02-24, 09:12 PM

Whew, the thread's really kicking up.

You could also just straight up add your level to rolls, instead of half-level, and have that subsume ability score progression.

Yeah, that's the easier route and it's straight up what monsters do. WotC seems to have throttled that back to half level to make room for scaling enhancement and ability bonus, which created the infamous match issues that lead to the expertise feats.

For those not familiar, monsters add their level to defenses, so by level 30, their defenses have grown by 29, but PC attack has only grown by 25 (+15 half level bonus, +4 ability score growth, +6 enhancement bonus). Expertise feats let you bump that up to 28.

So in short, if our hero focuses entirely on developing the right talents and has the best weapon available they only become slightly less accurate against comparable foes then when they first started. Show they have to fight unarmed, they can kiss any chance of hitting goodbye as they lose both their enhancement and expertise bonuses for a whopping -9 to hit.

Incidentally, this part of what I'm not fond of with ability score growth. With how enemy defenses scale, your faster growing abilities just keep pace and everything else ends up effectively taking a mounting penalty.

That does not fixes the problem. It doesn't matter if your character adds level, half level, or even zero to all checks. When one character got +5 to a skill due to stats alone and another gains +0, it is hard to balance DC for both. If one is trained, increase his stats, and manage to gain small bonuses from other places, we're talking about a +12 or so against +0.

Which is why I honestly think total bonuses should be capped. Either explicitly or by not writing bonuses for certain type past preset thresholds. That or we make success a bit less binary. Heck, something as simple as "get a perk if you beat the roll by 5" would let us aim at setting the base DC lower while still giving specialists something to roll for.

I've actually been leaning toward something like that for attacks anyway. If we let the base hit DC scale slowly if at all but let defenses scale full tilt we're got "you missed", "you hit but they defended", and "you smashed through their defenses", kind of like the "missed", "hit but saved against", and "hit and they failed their save".

Capping ability scores is a bad idea, and takes away from the feeling of being "epic" at higher tiers. 4e is awesome because you can literally become gods, and 5e ruined that. Let's not take that away from our players.

I half get what you're going for here. I get that epic types should be able to do things like say redirecting a river with their sheer power. The thing is I'm not sure ability score growth does a good job of that. In terms of pure bonuses, you can get the same effect by keeping the mods in the same range and just moving up the baseline. For example, +4 level bonus and 16 Str gives you the same +7 bonus 24 strength would. Except with 24 strength you need to inflate everything else as well or have it fall behind.

Honestly, I could see going with growing abilities if doubled down on it and opened up new ways to apply you inflated ability as you grow in level. For example, maybe your character has "legendary strength" as a key trait and can pick up "fierce-some might" to apply that strength to intimidation. It would avoid oddities like say scholars being able to beat tavern thugs in arm wresting from their level alone. It depends on whether you prefer epic heroes be good at everything or just good at apply their strengths to everything.

One of the problems with the NADS is that there's no good reason to double up on Str/Con for tough guys, or Dex/Int for smart agile guys, because you only take the higher of each pairing to determine your Fort, Ref, and Will. Investing all your points into Strength and Constitution leaves you with a weak character.
My solution to Fortitude, Reflex, and Will was to base their bonuses on averages of their pairings.
Fortitude defense, for example is (Str + Con)/2 + Level + 10. So you're encouraged to spread your abilities out a bit more.

It's workable, though I'd say round up so there's some incentive to shore up a score in your weak pair. Incidentally, if you used scores, you could use (Str score + Con score) / 5 + Level + 5 to make those odd scores matter a little more. Not that's I'd mind ditching said scores.

The problem, which I see as two-fold, is 4E didn't go far enough away from previous editions in that it continued WotC's odd mindset of having lots of bad choices mixed in with some really good ones; and that, in choosing a linear system, the designers forgot to take into account the line falling off its target the further along it goes.

The first part of the problem should be easy enough to resolve. With the CharOp guides, we have the resources available to us to trim the fat from the system and get it down to its true core.

The second part I think is going to take a lot of time and effort to answer, and I'm concerned this thread will get bogged down trying to answer it, so I'd like to suggest that we separate that discussion out into its own thread. Would that be acceptable?

It's not so much that it's hard to fix as it is picking the fix. After all, monster math already handles it just fine. It's more that we'd have to decide what factors we want going up with level. The full level approach simplifies things with making characters awesome at everything. In contrast, splitting that up means you take a bit hit in the long term whenever those bonuses don't apply.

I'm half leaning toward a degrees of success mechanics to get out of that myself, but barring that I'd likely side with awesome at everything unless we give characters a way to cover themselves when they lose those bonuses. Blanket awesomeness may have some dissonance issues, but I dislike not being able to do something do to bonuses more.

As far as splintering the thread goes, we can do that. I suspect there are a lot of topics that will spur big debates given we're looking at a whole system.

Defenses: Why not go 13th Age style and pick middle of X, Y and Z?

What are we (and by we I mean you, because I won't be able to contribute much) going to do about the roles? Splitting Controller into Artillery and Effect is one thing, but are there going to be other changes?

It's do able, through it blurs them a bit too much for my taster. If we kept the spread small, I'd actually be on board for defending with individual abilities, Str vs Str for locked blades, for example.

As for role, I recall the monster roles making a good impression. There's a strange feel that they were shooting for four roles as some kind of magic number for PCs while without that constraint the roles see to have spread out more naturally. Looking through the MM, I'm seeing artillery, brute, controller, lurker, skirmisher, soldier, and leader, with leader spelled out as non-exclusive. Brute feels descriptive but kind of hard to place on what their job is. Lurker seems like a kind of dual role as it switched between high offense and high defense. That leaves us pretty close to the original 4 with artillery split out of controller if we match soldier to defender and skirmisher to striker.

Can we all agree that defense calculation needs a rework? It seems to be a common agreement that SOMETHING needs done to fix Fort/Ref/Will, even if we cannot all necessarily agree on the how yet.

Agreed. This seems like a good candidate for "make a note of it and come back later".

Removing the idea that everything goes up with level -- which also allows a removal of the magic gear treadmill -- could fix that.

I see where you're coming from. I will beings that are untouchable to starting type has a nice epic feel, especially when you find a way to actually hurt them. Scaling down the bonus or making it a more focused bonus that you learn to reapply are interesting alternatives for this.

Bruno Carvalho

2016-02-24, 10:39 PM

Why?

We're not making D&D. We're making 4e. Which only kept those things because of nostalgia.

I think we're not on the same page here. We really need to know exactly what we're doing to do it as a team.

In a "D&D 4e fix" to "New game built from zero" slider, what is our position?

Nifft

2016-02-24, 10:45 PM

In a "D&D 4e fix" to "New game built from zero" slider, what is our position?

My ideal outcome would be "really cool new game which steals most of the nice things from 4e".

nikkoli

2016-02-25, 01:28 AM

I think we're not on the same page here. We really need to know exactly what we're doing to do it as a team.

In a "D&D 4e fix" to "New game built from zero" slider, what is our position?

I was under the impression that if that slider was 1 to 100 fix being 1 and new being 100 we would be somewhere around 25-30.

UrielAwakened

2016-02-25, 02:08 AM

Let's be honest, most of the similarities 4e has to other D&D editions can be summarized as:

1) Cosmetic similarities.
2) The d20.

They begin and end there. And I would argue most of the things that 4e was forced to keep because they were D&D-influenced are actually detriments. Beyond just the ability score issue being unnecessarily complicated, there are a lot of other things D&D doesn't do particularly well, despite what it's stated goals are.

D&D tries to be a dungeon delve simulator, for instance, and falls pretty short of that mark. Things like tracking food, rations, and supplies are generally hand-waved or eschewed completely in favor of magic or just simplicity. It also does nothing to really guide an aspiring DM on the hows or whys of dungeon design. You get a big tool box and no explanation or system that demonstrates how to use your tools adequately. Other systems have narrative design built right into their systems, while D&D is very much just "wing it." Which is great if you know how to run a game like that, and terrible if it's your first RPG. Which D&D usually is for most people.

Anyway, I'll get to all of that later. For now, let's talk items since we're getting into problems with "math."

Magic items are supposed to be these luxurious, cool devices that inspire your players. D&D and magic items go hand-in-hand. But in 4e they usually boil down to "Here's a +1 to a thing and here's a daily power you'll never use." D&D could really benefit from a system that required you to attach story significance to your magic items instead, so that they had greater resonance with the plot and the PCs. A flaming weapon shouldn't be something you find in a treasure chest. It should come from you stabbing a red dragon in the heart with your sword, and now it's just something your sword does.

Also 4e PCs could use more wiggle room on gold in general so they can spend more time buying cool items over "correct" items.

AND DON'T GET ME STARTED ON HOW BADLY 4E IGNORED ARTIFACTS. Talk about a fantastic concept that was completely swept under the rug. Artifacts and concordance were a fantastic idea that was barely ever seriously explored.

Lastly, shields and arms shouldn't be the same slot. That's stupid and I doubt most people even know that's how it actually works.

My ideal outcome would be "really cool new game which steals most of the nice things from 4e".

I agree. I think 4e does a few things great, namely the power system, the combat-building for DMs, and the combat itself....with some minor tweaks. I think it's probably the best system for tactical combat out there, but I think even more could be done to encourage that.

Shimeran

2016-02-25, 07:21 AM

Only time for a few points this morning..

On the one hand, I agree that explicit lists of powers as 4e has traditionally done it are unwieldy and lead to large scale imbalance (often due to individual powers being designed with unforeseen exploitable mechanisms) rather than what it was intended to do (e.g. provide a plethora of equally legitimate options). On the other, I can easily see creating all of your powers, especially if it uses a point based system, being overly complex for new players (which should always be a concern).

Well my thinking is we're going to want to build guidelines for powers anyway when we create them to keep them balanced, so why not share them with the players. I'd also like to clarify that I was talking about creating the powers when they're gained or retrained, not building them on the fly as they're needed.

(Not that there's not a space for improv powers, but those they'd have to be approached carefully. That being said, it sounds like a good tool for handling stunts.)

As for the new player issue, there's nothing stopping us from providing a list of prebuilt powers for each class. Plenty of full point based systems use this approach, often calling them templates. If we provide the guidelines, at
least we can hit the ground running on each class with a small list and expand that later.

Come to think of it, I did something like that on a Pathfinder class I'm building. The relevant text looks like this:

You have a knack for finding unusual items with strange powers. Three of your starting items gain the ability to conjure or act as another piece of equipment. For each of these item, roll 1d12 to determine what it creates or emulates:

acts as alchemist fire
conjures marker dye
acts as 50’ of silk rope
acts as bodybalm
acts as a medium tent
acts as a guard dog
conjures up to 20 javelins
acts as a rapier
acts as a smokestick
acts as a heavy steel shield
acts as a potion of Resistance
acts as a potion of Guidance

You can personalize this list at character creation to reflect the character’s tastes and interests. However, once set, entries can only be changed during down time or from level progression. For each entry, you can have it act as an item of up 25 gp or conjure up to 20 gp worth of items. Past 1st level, this price cap improves to 5 * class level * (character level + 5) for emulating items and 4 * class level * (character level + 5) for conjuring items.

In a "D&D 4e fix" to "New game built from zero" slider, what is our position?

I'm leaning toward "inspired by and compatible with" and "feels like 4e in play", though I suppose the feels like bit is more like "has all the fun and easy bits I remember from 4e sessions, especially the bits that were a welcome change". I also prefer "quick and easy" and am not adverse to swiping from other great systems like Dungeon World, 13th Age, and Old School Hack.

So I guess that puts me around 30 or so? I feel the urge to innovate, but I'm trying to keep that contained to keep from ending up with a different animal entirely.

Ursus Spelaeus

2016-02-25, 07:34 AM

I'm leaning toward "inspired by and compatible with" and "feels like 4e in play", though I suppose the feels like bit is more like "has all the fun and easy bits I remember from 4e sessions, especially the bits that were a welcome change". I also prefer "quick and easy" and am not adverse to swiping from other great systems like Dungeon World, 13th Age, and Old School Hack.

So I guess that puts me around 30 or so? I feel the urge to innovate, but I'm trying to keep that contained to keep from ending up with a different animal entirely.

Right. Diverge too much from 4E and you get something like Strike! RPG.

http://www.strikerpg.com/start-playing-now.html

Bruno Carvalho

2016-02-25, 07:57 AM

I think we should start this project with a Negative Scope agreement.

In other words: WHAT will we NOT change? If we put the entire system on the chopping block, what we agree to keep?

Are we still going with the d20 roll-over mechanism? Are we still going with the STR-to-CHA six stat distribution? Are we still going with the races/classes/levels(and tiers) scheme? (there are other questions that could be asked, these are only examples)

To agree on what are the foundations we will build upon will make our work flow better.

Nifft

2016-02-25, 08:45 AM

I think we should start this project with a Negative Scope agreement.

In other words: WHAT will we NOT change? If we put the entire system on the chopping block, what we agree to keep?

- Six stats.
- AC + F/R/W, and each of those defenses can benefit from two different stats, whichever is higher.
- Powers.
- Basic attack powers.
- The person using a power rolls the dice to see if a power affects a target.
- Saving throws provide a half-life mechanism: 50+% are gone after 1 turn, etc.
- Healing surges.
- Bloodied.
- Standard/Move/Minor actions.
- Rituals.
- Teleport circles.
- Short / Long rests.
- Races. The specific races used in any given game will be campaign-specific, but the idea that different races exist as a character-building choice is an inherent part of the game.
- Classes.
- Levels. Presumably 30 of them. Nice things happen when you get to specific levels.
- Multi-classing and hybrid-classing are things which should probably exist, but I don't think 4e had good multi-class mechanics.

UrielAwakened

2016-02-25, 10:00 AM

- Six stats.
- AC + F/R/W, and each of those defenses can benefit from two different stats, whichever is higher.
- Powers.
- Basic attack powers.
- The person using a power rolls the dice to see if a power affects a target.
- Saving throws provide a half-life mechanism: 50+% are gone after 1 turn, etc.
- Healing surges.
- Bloodied.
- Standard/Move/Minor actions.
- Rituals.
- Teleport circles.
- Short / Long rests.
- Races. The specific races used in any given game will be campaign-specific, but the idea that different races exist as a character-building choice is an inherent part of the game.
- Classes.
- Levels. Presumably 30 of them. Nice things happen when you get to specific levels.
- Multi-classing and hybrid-classing are things which should probably exist, but I don't think 4e had good multi-class mechanics.

I agree with all of this except rituals. At least not in their current form. They definitely need a rework and I encourage everyone to look into a system like the FATE Fractal to do it. Basically, a ritual should be something you "battle," like a skill challenge is, except everyone gets to participate, and based on how well your team does, you get scaling returns from the ritual.

For instance, say you're trying to bind a demon with a planar circle. You would "battle" the ritual, and the better you do, the stronger your demon would be, etc...

nikkoli

2016-02-25, 11:03 AM

- Six stats.
- AC + F/R/W, and each of those defenses can benefit from two different stats, whichever is higher.
- Powers.
- Basic attack powers.
- The person using a power rolls the dice to see if a power affects a target.
- Saving throws provide a half-life mechanism: 50+% are gone after 1 turn, etc.
- Healing surges.
- Bloodied.
- Standard/Move/Minor actions.
- Rituals.
- Teleport circles.
- Short / Long rests.
- Races. The specific races used in any given game will be campaign-specific, but the idea that different races exist as a character-building choice is an inherent part of the game.
- Classes.
- Levels. Presumably 30 of them. Nice things happen when you get to specific levels.
- Multi-classing and hybrid-classing are things which should probably exist, but I don't think 4e had good multi-class mechanics.

I agree with this list.
I never quite understood saving throws in 4e, so either I need to be educated or them reworked.
30 levels I think is a perfect limit with 10 levels in each of the three tiers.
Hybrid is great because it doesn't have all of the broken things that gestalt has in 3.5 but it makes completely different class things.
But multi classing needs a top down rework. Do we want to make it do that you take levels in the class more like 3.5 or do we want to keep it similar to what it is but redo the options so they are all viable?

Dacia Brabant

2016-02-25, 12:10 PM

I agree with all of this except rituals. At least not in their current form. They definitely need a rework and I encourage everyone to look into a system like the FATE Fractal to do it. Basically, a ritual should be something you "battle," like a skill challenge is, except everyone gets to participate, and based on how well your team does, you get scaling returns from the ritual.

For instance, say you're trying to bind a demon with a planar circle. You would "battle" the ritual, and the better you do, the stronger your demon would be, etc...

Don't have much time right now so I can't respond to everything, but I agree with this (and with the list of keepers generally).

On multiclassing/hybrids, I like the ideas of both, but they really are in need of some work.

I love hybrids, it's my favorite thing about the system since it really allows you to crack the game open--but the way it's written it's waaay too easy to screw it up if you don't know what you're doing, and you could easily end up with a subpar character. This needs to be addressed if hybrids are to stay in the system.

The biggest issue with multiclassing as written is that the initial multiclass feat is great--but everything after that is terrible (outside of a couple niche builds). I'd like to do away with power swap feats completely and have more of the game run off of keywords. Say you're a Cleric and you take a Fighter multiclass feat; you're now a Fighter for purposes of feat selection--but also for power selection, provided that you already have a power of that type (encounter, utility, daily) from your base class. Do away with Paragon Multiclassing; instead you get a benefit from your multiclass when you hit level 11 and possibly at 21.

I recognize that this idea encroaches on hybrids, but hybrids need a fix anyway so they're not going to remain the same either. The main things I see are to make multiclassing actually feel like you have more than one class that you're benefiting from, and to do so in a way that doesn't impose feat taxes. I hate feat taxes.

Tegu8788

2016-02-25, 12:59 PM

I'm late to this party, but I've got lots of thoughts.

First, as for a power builder, this is an old spreadshee (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WNsOOU-rVrDkS0ygLieriKwZhkEmT_JxTwH3cNVFfaM/edit?usp=docslist_api)t someone else made. That said, I think that this sorta thing should only be used as a guideline for Extensions material. My fear is, despite how well we try to balance it, someone will figure out the optimum spread of [W], area spread, forced movement, and keywords, and then we'll see every caster using the same power. What would keep every melee class from Twin Striking?

I'm going to check out Fractal for Rituals, but Fate has another fix for us. Tiered results. Miss the DC=failure or success with a major drawback. Match the DC=tie or succeed with a minor consequence. Beat the DC=success. Beat the DC by a significant amount=success with a bonus. I think this could definitely help skill challenges.

We need some kind of ability score, whether it's the standard 6, or WoD 9, my feelings aren't as strong. I actually like the idea of the physical-mental-social split for skill training. Would make hybrids tricky though.

I love having PCs align more with Monster Roles, with some adjustments of course. Rogues are Lurkers, Fighters are Soldiers, and Barbarians are Brutes. Monk and Sorcerer would both be Artillery.

Multiclassing needs some buffing to be certain. As for hybrids, I'm all in for retouching that one. More skills for being a more diverse character, for certain.

UrielAwakened

2016-02-25, 01:02 PM

Ursus Spelaeus

2016-02-25, 01:34 PM

How do we want to approach average damage?
Average damage is supposed to start at 9 for non-strikers and go up by one at each level.

For my own heartbreaker I decided to look for solutions that would keep roughly the same average while increasing dice variability (which meant minimizing modifiers). I decided to go with scaling dice steps and multiple dice.
For weapon attacks (in my own game) you can apply up to two weapons to an attack and roll damage dice for both. Off-hand and unarmed weapon damage steps up at even levels, one-hand and two-hand weapons step up at odd levels.
So weapon damage by level usually looks like...
1. 1d8+1d6 (average 8)
2. 2d8 (average 9)
3. 1d10+1d8 (average 10)
4. 2d10 (average 11)
5. 1d12+1d10 (average 12)
6. 2d12 (average 13)

(Note that I've gone with the potentially controversial choice to cap levels at 6 rather than 30.)

For magic attacks in my game, damage scales as follows:

0. 3d4* (average 7.5)
1. 1d6+2d4 (average 8.5)
2. 2d6+1d4 (average 9.5)
3. 3d6 (average 10.5)
4. 1d8+2d6 (average 11.5)
5. 2d8+1d6 (average 12.5)
6. 3d8 (average 13.5)

I'm taking the 'exploding dice' mechanic under serious consideration as it allows for a way to increase variability without impacting the average by very much.

Now, this is the direction I decided to go in, and you guys will likely want to go in a different direction.
What I hope you will see here though is that it is possible to find solutions with results that are very similar to 4E's target math even though different operations were used to get there. Something to consider.

Nifft

2016-02-25, 09:04 PM

Very good points about not bringing Rituals in un-altered -- and the same for Skill Challenges, which are worthless as-written but which indicate a mechanical role that ought to be filled by something.

- - -

Regarding damage progression, IMHO randomness favors the DM, since the DM rolls a lot more dice, and a PC only needs to die once*. So my preference is a mix of fixed bonus damage with some randomness where each is about half the total. Predictable results means it's possible to reason about risks. Too much randomness makes even basic tactical analysis impossible.

* your mortality may vary.

- - -

So, if AC and Attack don't go up linearly, what else is there to distinguish a level 30 Demi-God from a level 1 Nerf Herder?
- Damage
- HP
- # of Healing Surges
- Powers
- Feats
- Gear
- (maybe) Armor-as-DR which increases with level, based on class so Defenders get more.
- (maybe) Damage Threshold (from Star Wars SAGA) which somehow co-exists with Bloodied.
- (maybe) Tier bonus to attack rolls vs. lower Tier foes.

... is that enough? It looks like it might be enough.

Tegu8788

2016-02-25, 09:10 PM

While I love Saga's threshold system, I see it as an either or with Bloodied.

Nifft

2016-02-25, 09:15 PM

While I love Saga's threshold system, I see it as an either or with Bloodied.

SAGA's wound system is a death-spiral, and that's NOT appropriate for a D&D game.

Bloodied does nothing by itself -- it's only a trigger for other powers & effects -- while the Saga Wound system does have an inherent effect, similar to how 3.5e's negative levels worked.

So IMHO the only way a threshold could work is if it was NOT a death spiral. I'm unsure how to accomplish that, but if it could be done, it would have a neat effect in making level matter more.

Shimeran

2016-02-25, 09:33 PM

Right. Diverge too much from 4E and you get something like Strike! RPG.

http://www.strikerpg.com/start-playing-now.html

Yeah, I've picked that up myself. It's an interesting looking game, but definitely it's own beast. I'd give it a run, but probably not to scratch any 4e i

In other words: WHAT will we NOT change? If we put the entire system on the chopping block, what we agree to keep?

I'd say these are some of the things that make up 4e mechanical identity. Change them too much and it's likely to start feeling like a different system.

Hit points. Especially in more cinematic (non-meat point) interpretation.
The division of said points into a tactical and strategic pool via healing surges.
The ability to tap the strategic pool via leader abilities, usually without tieing up the healer's turn.
Clearly defined jobs for each character (via the role mechanics).
Abilities that can used every turn, allowing for reliable awesomeness within each classes own area of expertise (no need for wizards with crossbows).
Having abilities that aren't usable every turn, leading to more variation between turns.
Having abilities that can't be used every fight, leading to more variation between fight.
Critical hits.
Progression from street level adventures to handling world spanning threats.
Having attacks rolls vs defenses.

Then we've got some thing that are more trappings. They're part of the feel of the game, but you could probably substitute them without changing gameplay too much. They're decent targets for offshoots, but should probably be kept standard in core.

The six standard scores, under one guise or another.
The presence of magic and magical items, especially past starting levels.

There are probably plenty more in both camps, those are just the first to spring to mind. Now on to Nifft's list.

- Six stats.

I could see varying that, but we really don't need to for the core. I'm fine with sticking to the six.

- AC + F/R/W, and each of those defenses can benefit from two different stats, whichever is higher.

I could go either way here, though I do think the idea of ability dependent defenses is one we need to keep. Being able to say the equivalent "+4 vs reflex" is part of the game's feel. I will say though with reflex being it's own thing, I'd be tempted to have "armor class" just be "armor" as in "+4 vs armor". Armor hasn't really had a class in ages, so it's kind of just legacy lingo.

- Powers.

Not sure what aspect in particular you're talking about, but "here's a special thing I can do thanks to my race, class, ect.." is a definite keeper.

- Basic attack powers.

I'm honestly less attached to basic attacks in general than I am to at will powers as always having something class appropriate to do is nice. I suppose each class should have basic attacks so they're granted attack friendly though.

- The person using a power rolls the dice to see if a power affects a target.

Fair enough. I can see the appeal of rolling to defend / save, but not doing should keep the 4e feel a bit stronger.

- Saving throws provide a half-life mechanism: 50+% are gone after 1 turn, etc.

I don't know as it need to be a half life, but having ongoing effects that characters try to shake off every round is definitely a 4eism.

- Healing surges.

Yeah. We'll probably have to rename those, having a strategic hit point pool with restricted access is definitely part of 4e's feel. Maybe we can call them "reserves", so you'd "tap your reserves to gain your recovery value in hit points" and "exhaust you reserves" when something would eat a surge.

- Bloodied.

Sure. Not everyone used them, but enough did to keep them. Plus the "you should start describing superficial wounds now" guideline is nice.

- Standard/Move/Minor actions.

No arguments there, though we probably need to rename minors as I think they're new to 4e. I think their OGL equivalent would be swift actions.

- Rituals.

Being able to do extra things with preparation, sure, though the execution needs work. In addition to sources sited, the wizard's ritual mechanics in Dungeon World is nice as it's got a "say what you want to get done, the GM will tell you what the obstacles are" mechanic.

- Teleport circles.

Agreed. They're a nice solution to fast transit without scry and fry exploits.

- Short / Long rests.

I don't know as the short rests themselves are critical so much as the ability to recover when you can take a breather.

Long rests are a bit messier. I agree the ability to do a full refresh in the field is critical, but some of the details are a bit awkward. Worth keeping but likely also worth fine tuning.

- Races. The specific races used in any given game will be campaign-specific, but the idea that different races exist as a character-building choice is an inherent part of the game.

I'd say certainly as part of the core. I can see substituting for other background so certain settings, but that's not really the default.

- Classes.

No arguments there, the game is strongly archetype based.

- Levels. Presumably 30 of them. Nice things happen when you get to specific levels.

Yeah, the "zero to hero" progression is deeply ingrained in the game, though admittedly it's more a "hero to demigod" progression in 4e. I do like the "certain levels are game changers" part and might want to riff on that later.

- Multi-classing and hybrid-classing are things which should probably exist, but I don't think 4e had good multi-class mechanics.

Yeah, I love me some hybridization, but the system support is iffy. The funny thing is I can actually see some class concepts as kind of standardized hybrids. For example, I could see a dual-source paladin using martial at wills and divine encounter and daily powers, making that touch of the divine a more occasional thing, perhaps making it a bit more special for that character.

Actually, my solution for that was to drop Twin Strike altogether and turn it into the Ranger's class feature. When attacking your quarry, you make an extra basic attack. No extra damage die feature for them. That makes them stand out more from Warlocks and Rogues.

While I can see that, I'm not sure "hits a lot of times" screams ranger to me. That being said, the class has a kind of weak identity outside of "minimally magical nature guy", as seem by the identity issues that continue into 5e.

(Come to think of it, I can totally see "hits like a whirlwind" as dervish, duelist, or berserker concept, so maybe just reflavoring to embrace that would work.)

How do we want to approach average damage?
Average damage is supposed to start at 9 for non-strikers and go up by one at each level.

I'm kind of one the fence about the "it's the striker's job to do damage" mentality. I actually like the idea that they're better at delivering it where it's most needed. That said, I recognize some players will prefer fast and risk over safer defensive styles and some leeway should be built in for that.

Overall I'd say the key is average damage needs to keep up with hp scaling without relying to exploiting particular types of attacks.

I particular, I've been finding "miss damage" an appealing way of boosting average damage at higher levels. The thinking being at high levels you'll likely hit most of the time, with foes needing to defend to save themselves from your blow and even then doing so is taxing, slowly wearing them down with the power of your assault.

For weapon attacks (in my own game) you can apply up to two weapons to an attack and roll damage dice for both. Off-hand and unarmed weapon damage steps up at even levels, one-hand and two-hand weapons step up at odd levels.

I can see that working, though I'd be tempted to make 2 handed weapons 2 dice weapons and having one dice be the "off hand" dice.

UrielAwakened

2016-02-25, 10:25 PM

Healing surges need to be called "stamina" final answer.

Tegu8788

2016-02-26, 12:49 AM

Heroic Surge was proposed, and maintains the "HS" to reduce name changes.

Ursus Spelaeus

2016-02-26, 06:04 AM

No arguments there, though we probably need to rename minors as I think they're new to 4e. I think their OGL equivalent would be swift actions.

Alternatively, we could rename standards to majors.

I'm kind of one the fence about the "it's the striker's job to do damage" mentality. I actually like the idea that they're better at delivering it where it's most needed. That said, I recognize some players will prefer fast and risk over safer defensive styles and some leeway should be built in for that.

Overall I'd say the key is average damage needs to keep up with hp scaling without relying to exploiting particular types of attacks.

Agreed. How much do we want to fiddle with hit point totals?
If we ditch ability scores in favor of straight ability bonuses, we are going to need to fiddle with first level hit point totals.
I've also seen houserules to the effect of giving PC's additional hit points only at even levels for purposes of making combat deadlier and more exciting.

I particular, I've been finding "miss damage" an appealing way of boosting average damage at higher levels. The thinking being at high levels you'll likely hit most of the time, with foes needing to defend to save themselves from your blow and even then doing so is taxing, slowly wearing them down with the power of your assault.

It's a good way of increasing average damage by about 50%. It's a must for encounter and daily attacks.

I can see that working, though I'd be tempted to make 2 handed weapons 2 dice weapons and having one dice be the "off hand" dice.
Yeah, two-handed weapons deal two dice of damage in my game.

Shimeran

2016-02-26, 07:51 AM

Heroic Surge was proposed, and maintains the "HS" to reduce name changes.

I'd actually prefer Uriel's "stamina". It sound more like an in world resource. (Surges sound like something that happens, stamina sounds like something you have.) I haven't seem the HS abbreviation used that often so I don't see that outweighing the more intuitive name that already maps to a real world concept. It's also easy to see how draining effects and skill failure can deplete stamina as opposed to spending heroism.

Alternatively, we could rename standards to majors.

The thing is standard and swift are OGL but minor isn't, so there's better legal defense for using that combo.

Nifft

2016-02-26, 08:12 AM

Stamina seems like a thing that you deplete as you get fatigued or exhausted.

So, not like something which is related to the HP mechanic.

If we must change the wording from Healing Surge, then I propose Vitality.

Dacia Brabant

2016-02-26, 09:45 AM

I don't know, I think the longer a fight goes and the more effort you're having to expend to survive it (i.e. losing hit points), the more you're having to rely on your stamina to stay upright. Vitality is related to that, in the sense of how healthy you are.

How about we split the baby and replace Healing Surges with Stamina and Surge Value with Vitality?

I'd also like to suggest that since Stamina (healing surges) reflects one's force of will as well as one's overall health, we consider having both CON and CHA contribute to it. The archetype of the frail, unhealthy wizard who pushes himself on through sheer determination (hello, Raistlin) has gone by the wayside ever since anything less than an exceptionally high CON started granting bonus HP, and I'd like to see that come back without them all being Born Under a Bad Sign.

UrielAwakened

2016-02-26, 09:50 AM

Heroic Surge was proposed, and maintains the "HS" to reduce name changes.

That's not as good of a name IMO. That honestly sounds more like an action point.

Ursus Spelaeus

2016-02-26, 09:51 AM

I still need to implement a healing surge equivalent in my personal 4E heartbreaker. I'm going to call them 'songs' though, just because I think everybody should have a little bard in them. :smallbiggrin:

Do you guys want to keep the 'Second Wind' action as a standard action, or change it to a minor action for everybody? Also, do you want to do any tweaks to it? Like borrowing rules from Gamma World?

Dacia Brabant

2016-02-26, 04:22 PM

Still busy with work, but I did want to say that Second Wind taking up your attack action is pretty much useless as written--unless you have a way of converting it to a minor action. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to have it be a minor across the board though.

Having it be a move action makes more sense to me, if it's supposed to represent stopping to catch your breath. You'd still get to do something beneficial when you use it, but there'd be a trade-off for it in the action economy as well.

And FWIW I'd be in favor of renaming the action spread to major-minor-move: call it the 3 M's (not to be confused with 3M :smalltongue: ). I don't think that would violate anything proprietary.

Shimeran

2016-02-27, 06:15 AM

Do you guys want to keep the 'Second Wind' action as a standard action, or change it to a minor action for everybody? Also, do you want to do any tweaks to it? Like borrowing rules from Gamma World?

Well on thinking through renames I was going to propose "Rally". My first thoughts were to make it a standard an optional trigger that lets you use it as a reaction, such as seeing an ally get bloodied. Though on reflection that's got some issues. On reflection, just making it a minor with a bloodied requirement might get the same feel some simply.

On a related note, I'm liking the more natural sounding lingo we're drifting toward with things like stamina in place of healing surges. Any chance we can do the same to hit points? Health is the most common replacement, but it's got a meat points feel that doesn't match 4e. I'd been thinking of "guard" as a possibility, based on the idea that when their guard is broken they can not longer defend themselves. Combined with the other switches, we'd have "When you rally, expend 1 stamina to raise your guard by your vitality."

Having it be a move action makes more sense to me, if it's supposed to represent stopping to catch your breath. You'd still get to do something beneficial when you use it, but there'd be a trade-off for it in the action economy as well.

I'm generally reluctant to take away move actions as it leads to more static combats. It's also makes it a more swingy cost for ranged attackers, being either cheap if no one is in threat range or very expensive if they are.

And FWIW I'd be in favor of renaming the action spread to major-minor-move: call it the 3 M's (not to be confused with 3M :smalltongue: ). I don't think that would violate anything proprietary.

Well if we're going for pairing, I'd be tempted to got with primary and secondary. Heck, throw in an extra descriptor and you could fold movement in there now. For example:

"You can take 1 primary action and up to 2 secondary actions per round. Both secondary actions must have a different sub-type."

Then write up something like:

Walk (Secondary Action - Movement)
You move 5 squares along the ground.

While I'm at it, let me put up a tentative power format so we can start hashing that out.

Strike (Rote Primary Action - Manual)
You swing at your foe with whatever's at hand, including your own body, hoping to take them down.
Affects: 1 adjacent enemy
Check: Str or Dex
Success (Difficulty 10): Deal 1d4 bashing damage.
Success (Armor & Dex Defense): Deal Str bonus bashing damage.

Here's a quick run down of the write up:
The "Rote" descriptor means you can do it reflexively, letting it function as a basic attack.
"Affects" takes the place of the target line.
"Check" takes the place of "Attack" as it tells you what to roll and can be generalized to non-combat powers. I made it dual stat for a bit more flexibility. The fact it mirrors defense that way is an added perk.
"Success" lines tell you what happens when you meet or beat the specificed value.
The first check against a flat difficulty gives us something that will function as a miss effect at higher skill levels.
The second check is against 2 stats, with armor functioning as one of those stats. Spelling out the ability lets us pair them on the fly, so an armor piercing attack might be vs Con & Dex, persuasion could be vs Wis & Cha, knockdowns vs Str & Con, and so on.
There is no "At Will" marker as I'm running with the assumption that if there's no "Recharge" line you can use it at will.
There's no weapon marker as I was thinking weapons can be written to modify this action. For example, a dagger might have "When you strike with this weapon, the damage becomes slashing and you can use Dex in place of Str to deal damage." Ideally those would be folded into a kind of tag system.

Blake Hannon

2016-02-27, 07:09 AM

This is exactly what I've been looking for! Count me in.

Agreed. How much do we want to fiddle with hit point totals?
If we ditch ability scores in favor of straight ability bonuses, we are going to need to fiddle with first level hit point totals.

I've been trying out various houserules to do just that, and I eventually found something that works quite well.

Starting hit points are equal to your Constitution score + 10 + whatever extra you get from your character class. This means that first level characters have slightly less starting hp than they do in vanilla 4e, but its a very small difference, and the monsters will be getting the same treatment.

Speaking of monsters and hp, most monsters in 4e have too much health, and it makes combat take forever. The later 4e books took away a bit of health and added a bit of damage, but they should have gone further. I personally have taken to "downgrading" each monster role on the hp scale, so that brutes have 8 hp per level, soldiers and skirmishers have 6-7, and artillery types only get 4 or 5.

I haven't been impressed with 5E for the most part, but there's one thing from it that I REALLY think we should steal: bounded accuracy. Armies should never be completely irrelevant. PC's should be able to escape higher level monsters if they happen to wander into one. Bounded accuracy does wonders for worldbuilding and campaign/adventure design.

Of course, removing the half level bonus to attacks and defenses in 4e creates a bunch of "dead" levels where you get nothing but hp. If we implement bounded accuracy, we'll need to do something else to fill out the level spread.

Now, while 4e is my favorite edition, here's a list of things that I think it did badly and need improvement.

Skill System. "Add half level to everything, plus five if you're trained" sucks. Granted, all the skill systems in DnD thus far have sucked to one degree or another, but 4E's might be the weakest. There should be an option to invest in some skills above others, and a much longer list of them to handle out-of-combat stuff. Possible solution: at certain levels, you can pick one or two skills to increase by a certain amount, and that's the ONLY WAY to improve them (barring perhaps the occasional feat). This helps solve the dead level problem, and ensures that even high level characters will be very skilled in some regards and completely untrained in others.

Noncombat spells. Rituals are not enough. In my current campaign, one of the PC's just died, and the player decided to roll up a psion as his new character. Despite being a respectable seventh level, his new character couldn't read minds. We hunted through the PHB3, and there was no psion ability that gave him conventional telepathy at that level. A psychic who can't read minds. All the character classes need more utility powers. We'll need to find a way to balance martial characters though, so that we don't run into the 3e problem of wizards being able to solve everything.

Complexity. All editions have suffered from this, but moreso than the others 4E has a problem of too many situational +1's and +2's that no one can ever keep track of. The marking mechanic is especially bad in this regard; no one can ever remember who is marked by who, and who gets the -2's to hit against which opponents. I love the idea of Marking, but it needs better implementation. In general, I'd like to get rid of as many of these finnicky little situational bonuses as possible and replace them with fewer, more substantial effects.

charcoalninja

2016-02-27, 08:22 AM

Namewise calling the system Force is badass. The logo for it could have a 4 behind the word. I'm following this with interest!

Edit: for names and reflavouring a useful tool for classes at least would be to use Pathfinder Archetypes from the PRD as they're all OGL.

Zireael

2016-02-27, 09:55 AM

Some ideas from someone not that familiar with 4e:

* Force as a name for the system is a good idea
* So is making the actions move-major-minor although I'm not sure if minor is OGL; if it isn't, rename minor to swift
* Keeping the Str-Int, Dex-Wis, Con-Cha pairs for saving throws is a good idea. Regardless of whether you end up using the bigger one or the average
* Rituals indeed need a rework
* What are you doing with 1/2 level bonus?
* Skill system. Maybe look at Pathfinder? 3.x has too much granularity. 4e has too little.

UrielAwakened

2016-02-27, 11:09 AM

Pathfinder skill system is garbage. It's as bad as 3.5s.

4e's works fine.

Blake Hannon

2016-02-27, 11:58 AM

4e's works fine.

Not really. 4e's skill system has the problem of everyone getting better at everything at more or less the same rate. Being higher level makes you better at swimming, lying, and history in equal measure. There's also the issue of the skill DC treadmill, where the DM needs to surround the PC's with ever-slipperier walls, thicker doors, and more inexplicably skeptical NPC's in order for their skill checks to have any possibility of failure. There's no room in 4e for the cunning peasant who manages to trick an evil sorcerer king, or the mighty warrior who couldn't name all the gods to save his life, despite there being ample precedent for both of these in the pulp fantasy stories that 4e seeks to emulate.

4e's skill system technically does its job, but there's ample room for improvement.

JBPuffin

2016-02-27, 01:53 PM

The only complaint my father and I (for whom 4e is our primary edition) have with the system in play is combat length. I can add on things like feat bloat and second-wind-as-a-standard-action-sucks, but for the most part we haven't had many problems with it in play. As I type this, my father's jiggering with monster math using Excel and formulas and is getting quite good results. Not sure where I meant to go with this...just note, quite a few of the system's advocates are willing to make whatever tweaks they deem necessary without redesigning everything, as with every edition, and that its appeal may not be as universal as it seems at first.

@Blake - You'd like my dad's new calculations, then. In a notable case, 30-level elites now have appr. 275 HP. It's drastically faster.

Tschus.

Dacia Brabant

2016-02-27, 03:41 PM

Not sure where I meant to go with this...just note, quite a few of the system's advocates are willing to make whatever tweaks they deem necessary without redesigning everything, as with every edition, and that its appeal may not be as universal as it seems at first.

I hear what you're saying. The impetus behind this, though, at least for some of us isn't that we believe 4E is broken so much that it's in need of help--and it's eminently clear that help won't be coming from the company that developed it. Homebrewers will continue to devise their own solutions, and more power to them; 3.5E homebrewers are still going strong long after Pathfinder has grown into prominence as that edition's spiritual successor.

If Force, assuming that's the name we go with (thanks for the vote of confidence on that one, guys, and for making it less corny :smallsmile: ) can be even half as successful as that was, that'd be something this community could be extremely proud of. Fortunately we have some brilliant people here, so I'm optimistic. And it's great to see more an more interest: welcome everyone! :smallbiggrin:

Now that I'm off my soapbox, just a couple of things before I go grab lunch:

I like Guard as a replacement for Hit Points: moving away from gamist terminology is a good thing in my opinion. Rally as a replacement for Second Wind makes sense under that terminology, and it's more active.
On major-minor-move, the Dragon Age RPG uses "major" and "minor" actions, and it's not d20 so I don't think it'll be an OGL issue, but I can check with my attorney who handles copyrightcases to be on the safe side. On the other hand...
On Second Wind/Rally as a move action, I do see your point, but I think you hit on the solution, Shimeran, by removing "move" as an action unto itself and having walking be a minor/secondary action, of which you get two that must be used for two different actions. That's another thing Dragon Age RPG got right. Primary/Secondary would work just as well as Major/Minor; I just like the alliteration and the fewer syllables of the latter.
On Skills, I think they do need some work--and I'd like to see something in the way of background skills--but ugh, I do not like skill ranks/skill points. What about that idea of breaking them out into physical/mental/social--I'm sorry, I can't remember who suggested this--and having to designate them from 1 to 3 in terms of specializing in them and at least have the ones that are untrained rise in proportion to how good you are generally speaking at those three types? Trained skills would still get full 1/2 progression, and untrained ones might also if they're of the type you're best in, while the others might advance at 1/3 or 1/4 progression.

Philemonite

2016-02-27, 03:49 PM

Are we renaming classes/roles/power sources/whatelse...?

On Skills, I think they do need some work--and I'd like to see something in the way of background skills--but ugh, I do not like skill ranks/skill points. What about that idea of breaking them out into physical/mental/social--I'm sorry, I can't remember who suggested this--and having to designate them from 1 to 3 in terms of specializing in them and at least have the ones that are untrained rise in proportion to how good you are generally speaking at those three types? Trained skills would still get full 1/2 progression, and untrained ones might also if they're of the type you're best in, while the others might advance at 1/3 or 1/4 progression.

I like this. I like anything that avoids assigning skill ranks, because I think that's one of the worst designer decision in history of gaming. Yes, I really do have skill ranks, how did you know?:smallbiggrin:

Bruno Carvalho

2016-02-27, 05:09 PM

Shimeran

2016-02-27, 05:32 PM

This is exactly what I've been looking for! Count me in.

Welcome aboard. :smallsmile:

Speaking of monsters and hp, most monsters in 4e have too much health, and it makes combat take forever.

Scaling down hp certainly seems appealing. Heck, one quick double fix I'd toyed with is restricting damage bonuses to once per target per round, but halving hp growth per level to compensate. I think it's largely a matter of ask how long we want monsters to last and what hp we need to give them to do so.

Along those line, I think gearing combat for more variable length would be good. 4e is generally good for set pieces, but sometimes you want a quick skirmish. Maybe we can port in an mechanic that keeps the big guns out of quick fights, like 13th Age's escalation die.

I haven't been impressed with 5E for the most part, but there's one thing from it that I REALLY think we should steal: bounded accuracy. Armies should never be completely irrelevant. PC's should be able to escape higher level monsters if they happen to wander into one. Bounded accuracy does wonders for worldbuilding and campaign/adventure design.

I'd on the other side of the fence on this one. I like the idea that there are something out there that can take on armies on their own, necessitating special measures. I don't like the idea that an army of untrained crossbowman can kill anything. I'm not opposed to low level types being able to harm such beings, I'm just not thrilled that they can do so with sticks and stones.

That being said, I can definitely see toning down and reigning in 4e's scaling. The current +level scaling means mosters become unhittable by the end of the same tier. I can definitely see scaling it down so you've got a fair chance of hitting anything in your tier.

How about dropping the total growth to around 1/3rd level? That would be after factor in ability score growth and enhancment bonuses, if we use those. That way things only get unhittable at the extreme ends and even then it's close enough that aid another put them back in range, if barely.

On a side note, I'm not really a fan of enhancement bonuses as such. Generic +x weapons and armor don't excite me. How about it magic weapons let you use their level in place of your own if it's higher? That keeps higher level gear appealing while also letting you have an army that hit top tier foes at the cost of expensive armaments.

Of course, removing the half level bonus to attacks and defenses in 4e creates a bunch of "dead" levels where you get nothing but hp. If we implement bounded accuracy, we'll need to do something else to fill out the level spread.

For me, the dead level feeling usually comes from not having anything interesting at a level, and stat bonuses aren't generally that interesting in and of themselves.

Skill System. "Add half level to everything, plus five if you're trained" sucks.

The topic of whether we want omni-competent heroes has been broached before, though I'm not sure it's been settled. I did propose having more focused growth, with high levels characters getting better at applying their strengths to a wider range of situations.

Noncombat spells. Rituals are not enough.

Honestly, one of the most appealing thing we could probably add is making the non-combat side even half as rich as the combat side. If we get far enough to have role equivalents, we're probably doing well.

Complexity. All editions have suffered from this, but moreso than the others 4E has a problem of too many situational +1's and +2's that no one can ever keep track of.

At least it's got the typed bonus mechanic as a way to potentially reign that in. If we're trimming things, I'd be more than ready to put enhancement bonuses on the chopping block.

Namewise calling the system Force is badass.

Which would make the basic part "Force Core". I approval of the accidental historical reference. :smallsmile:

On a more serious note, I agree it's a good name, though maybe one that should be expanded slightly for final release. Maybe "Dungeon Force" as the full title? The addition reminds me of the dungeons as living things idea I've seem floating around, which is intriguing. The resemble to Freedom Force is a plus in my book and the name seem largely untaken with a rare exception (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ir8IjtPt_s).

Not really. 4e's skill system has the problem of everyone getting better at everything at more or less the same rate. Being higher level makes you better at swimming, lying, and history in equal measure. There's also the issue of the skill DC treadmill, where the DM needs to surround the PC's with ever-slipperier walls, thicker doors, and more inexplicably skeptical NPC's in order for their skill checks to have any possibility of failure. There's no room in 4e for the cunning peasant who manages to trick an evil sorcerer king, or the mighty warrior who couldn't name all the gods to save his life, despite there being ample precedent for both of these in the pulp fantasy stories that 4e seeks to emulate.

That's a bit misleading. I believe the intent of those rules is let the DM know how challenging something will be for their party. There's no reason you couldn't just set the DCs without adjusting them to player level, you just need a way of signaling the challenge level ahead of time.

I like Guard as a replacement for Hit Points: moving away from gamist terminology is a good thing in my opinion. Rally as a replacement for Second Wind makes sense under that terminology, and it's more active.

Horray! Glad to see I found some terms that resonate with other folks.

On major-minor-move, the Dragon Age RPG uses "major" and "minor" actions, and it's not d20 so I don't think it'll be an OGL issue, but I can check with my attorney who handles copyrightcases to be on the safe side. On the other hand...

I also found minor actions in use on the Traveller SRD (http://www.travellersrd.com/content/official/mongoose_traveller_srd/combat.html), so with 2 alternate sources we should be good. That link also has some other interesting ideas that might be worth looking at.

On Second Wind/Rally as a move action, I do see your point, but I think you hit on the solution, Shimeran, by removing "move" as an action unto itself and having walking be a minor/secondary action, of which you get two that must be used for two different actions. That's another thing Dragon Age RPG got right. Primary/Secondary would work just as well as Major/Minor; I just like the alliteration and the fewer syllables of the latter.

The Traveller link about does that too, folding movement into a minor action. I'd just suggest running with the "of different sub-types" class if we're granting two minors as otherwise players can double move and attack if they're not using the second minor on anything else. On the other hand, that's kind of a freebie charge mechanics..

As for the names, I admit the brevity of Major/Minor is appealing. I'd be fine running with that.

On Skills, I think they do need some work--and I'd like to see something in the way of background skills--but ugh, I do not like skill ranks/skill points. What about that idea of breaking them out into physical/mental/social--I'm sorry, I can't remember who suggested this--and having to designate them from 1 to 3 in terms of specializing in them and at least have the ones that are untrained rise in proportion to how good you are generally speaking at those three types? Trained skills would still get full 1/2 progression, and untrained ones might also if they're of the type you're best in, while the others might advance at 1/3 or 1/4 progression.

Yeah, not fond of skill ranks myself. I've got no problem with a few more gradients in skill levels, but tracking it down to the exact bonus level doesn't seem rewarding enough for the effort given the small impact each +1 has on a d20.

How about splitting the trained bonus from it's growth? So any task you're proficient with gives you a small flat bonus, say +2. Then let being specialized in the task add a scaling bonus. That way you can be proficient in a wide range of skills and specialized in a smaller number. We could add a third level of specialization from there, but honestly I think the more interesting option for further development is to start handling out skill powers or difficulty reductions instead of straight bonus inflation.

Are we renaming classes/roles/power sources/whatelse...?

I think the general trend is if we don't find an srd use of the name we look for an alternative. I will say with power sources I'm tempted to focus them slightly more to say around the Exalted level. Having alchemy or primal rage as power sources seems nice and readily identifiable.

I'm against this. This deepens even more the trained/untrained divide. We already have problems with overspecialization, and this makes it even worse.

I get that concern. Toning down growth might help with this, as would fewer levels of specialization and more ways to flex your skills.

On a related note, how do people feel about the broader backgrounds that 13th Age uses in place of skills? I could even see mixing both, with backgrounds providing proficiency and specializations sticking closer to the traditional skill list. Alternately, you could flip that around so more general backgrounds like sage get the scaling bonus to mark them as part of your identity while more focused skills get flat bonuses so they serve as specializations.

ThePurple

2016-02-27, 05:43 PM

On Skills, I think they do need some work--and I'd like to see something in the way of background skills--but ugh, I do not like skill ranks/skill points. What about that idea of breaking them out into physical/mental/social--I'm sorry, I can't remember who suggested this--and having to designate them from 1 to 3 in terms of specializing in them and at least have the ones that are untrained rise in proportion to how good you are generally speaking at those three types? Trained skills would still get full 1/2 progression, and untrained ones might also if they're of the type you're best in, while the others might advance at 1/3 or 1/4 progression.
[/LIST]

That was me.

Honestly, there are 2 things I'd like to get away from with skill checks. The first is getting away from static bonuses, and the second is getting away from the binary nature of their success.

For the first, the main reason I dislike the static bonuses is that it's too easy to stack them up and guarantee success. If a player can outright guarantee success on something that's supposed to be dramatically important, what's the point? The best solution, as I see it, is to replace skill training with a bonus die that grows as you become ever more proficient. Start it off as a d4 and each incremental bonus (some bonuses, like training would count for more) increases it by one level (like with weapon damage die and size). It would provide the same average while still giving the possibility of failure for hyper-trained individuals and success for less trained individuals.

For the second, I've always disliked how, with skill checks, you either succeed completely or fail completely. Other systems have dealt with this by having different levels of success based upon how your roll related to the DC (e.g. rolling more 5 less than the DC is less of a failure than 5 less and rolling more than 10 higher than what is needed is a greater success than normal), but, honestly, I've always found that clunky, especially since it really complicates DCs and doesn't really provide much in the way of a narrative guideline for what happens.

My solution to this is basically to use the same mechanics as attacks, insofar as you make one roll to determine whether or not you succeeded (with a low chance for a critical success) and a second roll to determine how well you succeeded. Skills would still have DCs relative to level and skill challenges would replace required successes with what amounts to "skill hp" (and would also do away with the whole "XXX successes before 3 failures" terribleness that skill challenges as written have; the limitation should be a number of rounds so that people with bad skill bonuses don't feel like they can't do anything without hurting the group).

It would also create some more interesting skill driven decision making in design (and tactical decision making if we also create a separate category of powers specifically to deal with skill challenges): do you focus on having good skill bonuses in order to meet DCs easily or focus on having good success values in order to have greater success when you do succeed.

It complicates the skill system up a bit, but I think the fact that it would use the same paradigm as combat largely cancels that out.

ThePurple

2016-02-27, 05:45 PM

I'm against this. This deepens even more the trained/untrained divide. We already have problems with overspecialization, and this makes it even worse.

The entire point of separate skills into physical/mental/social was to force players to diversify their chosen skills. It would no longer be possible to create a character who *only* has social skills, which prevents people from making characters that are incapable of acting usefully in skill challenges that aren't directly relevant to their specifically selected area of expertise (especially since physical/mental/social is basically the divide that skill challenges make).

Ursus Spelaeus

2016-02-27, 05:59 PM

Okay, so here's a thought I had on skills and how to give them a sense of progression without deepening the numeric disparity between the trained and the untrained:

Skill Tricks

Becoming trained in a skill opens up skill trick slots in that skill. Trained skills gain additional skill trick slots as you gain levels.

Basic skill tricks:
Ability Switch (You may change which ability this skill is linked to. For example, you can use this skill trick to link Intimidation to Strength instead of Charisma.)
Skill Replacement (Choose another skill. You may use this skill in place of the chosen skill when appropriate.)
Quick Action (If this skill is normally a move action or a major action, you may use it as a minor action instead.)

It's basically just a more freeform version of skill powers. The mechanic advances your skills not by piling on numeric bonuses, but by broadening your skills' capabilities.

Your thoughts?

Blake Hannon

2016-02-27, 06:17 PM

Welcome aboard. :smallsmile:

Thanks!

Along those line, I think gearing combat for more variable length would be good. 4e is generally good for set pieces, but sometimes you want a quick skirmish. Maybe we can port in an mechanic that keeps the big guns out of quick fights, like 13th Age's escalation die.

While I hate the Vancian magic system for a number of reasons, one good thing that it does is make the players think about resource expenditure during quick/minor battles. 4e has healing surges and daily powers that do this, but quick skirmishes are unlikely to consume either of those unless a monster lands a lucky sneak attack or crit.

I think that, rather than just making the big guns inaccessible during skirmishes, we should give the player the OPTION of using them, but making it a hard decision. Just to throw an idea out there, what if you had to spend a healing surge to recharge your encounter powers? Obviously this wouldn't work in RAW (it would screw over casters, due to their lower total surges), but if everyone in 4ce had more or less the same number of surges I think it could work.

It doesn't need to be healing surges neccesarily, that's just one idea. But making encounter powers cost *something* would make skirmishes less of a nonissue.

I'd on the other side of the fence on this one. I like the idea that there are something out there that can take on armies on their own, necessitating special measures. I don't like the idea that an army of untrained crossbowman can kill anything. I'm not opposed to low level types being able to harm such beings, I'm just not thrilled that they can do so with sticks and stones.

That being said, I can definitely see toning down and reigning in 4e's scaling. The current +level scaling means mosters become unhittable by the end of the same tier. I can definitely see scaling it down so you've got a fair chance of hitting anything in your tier.

How about dropping the total growth to around 1/3rd level? That would be after factor in ability score growth and enhancment bonuses, if we use those. That way things only get unhittable at the extreme ends and even then it's close enough that aid another put them back in range, if barely.

For me, the dead level feeling usually comes from not having anything interesting at a level, and stat bonuses aren't generally that interesting in and of themselves.

I see where you're coming from, and I may have overstated my position. Bounded Accuracy is an extreme, and I'd probably prefer more of a happy medium.

What I've been doing in my recent 4e campaigns is just condensing the levels into a 15 level spread, with level 15 being the cap, and restatting the monsters to fall into that level range. Obviously, I'd never recommend that for this project, as its suitable only for low power campaigns where the most powerful (and some of the most iconic) spells and abilities of DnD are simply not available. HOWEVER, it does work out very well with regard to things like attack bonuses, defenses, etc, and the way powerful characters interact with common ones. The most powerful monsters are untouchable to a first level PC, but there's no multiple tiers of untouchability. You can actually see how humans and halflings are able to survive in a world that contains drow and giants.

Halving the rate at which attack and defense bonuses increase would produce the same positive effects as my 15 level spread system, while removing the unfortunate cap that it places on kewl powerz. Especially if we also give everything less hp; another nerf for epic level beasts.

As I said before though, turning the 1/2 level bonus into a 1/3 or 1/4 level bonus will create a lot more dead levels that need filling. You already said that stat increases are the most boring benefit you can possibly get from leveling, and I wholeheartedly agree, but its still better than nothing. So, if we're doing a 20-30 level spread, we need to come up with something nice you can get from each level, even if its only a very minor nice thing at some levels.

On a side note, I'm not really a fan of enhancement bonuses as such. Generic +x weapons and armor don't excite me. How about it magic weapons let you use their level in place of your own if it's higher? That keeps higher level gear appealing while also letting you have an army that hit top tier foes at the cost of expensive armaments.

That's a cool idea. Lets say that magic items give you a small bonus if you're the same level as them or higher (so magic items never STOP being useful), but if you're lower level they help you more. Would require playtesting, but in theory it sounds good.

The topic of whether we want omni-competent heroes has been broached before, though I'm not sure it's been settled. I did propose having more focused growth, with high levels characters getting better at applying their strengths to a wider range of situations.

Yeah.

Having skills increase only at certain levels might actually be a good way to fill the level spread, come to think of it. Not with 3e style skill points (hahaha, **** skill points), but something else.

Maybe skills can increase in a similar way to abilities. Like, every fourth level in 4e, you can increase two of your ability scores. Maybe we can do a similar thing, where every X levels you can pick one or two skills to improve by Y amount.

Honestly, one of the most appealing thing we could probably add is making the non-combat side even half as rich as the combat side. If we get far enough to have role equivalents, we're probably doing well.

Yes. Though again, we'll have to be careful to avoid leaving noncasters in the dust. If casters get even a tenth of the noncombat utility spells that they had in 3.5, noncasters will need something pretty substantial of their own to make up for it.

ThePurple

2016-02-27, 06:33 PM

Along those line, I think gearing combat for more variable length would be good. 4e is generally good for set pieces, but sometimes you want a quick skirmish. Maybe we can port in an mechanic that keeps the big guns out of quick fights, like 13th Age's escalation die.

4e is designed for dramatic, cinematic combat. The short burst fights that can only really threaten to deal tiny bits of damage don't really fit within that paradigm.

The most effective way to handle it is to treat it as a skill challenge (or part of a skill challenge) that can cost the party healing surges and/or power uses during their next combat.

I'm not familiar with 13th Age's escalation die, but I do support the idea that there should be some limitation that either prevents or discourages players from throwing out their biggest powers at the very start of combat, especially since it so often results in an absolutely massive alpha strike on the part of the party that can pretty easily render an encounter irrelevant. One possibility would be to provide players with a mechanic that improves encounter/daily powers the longer a fight goes on or reduces their effectiveness for the first round of combat.

Another possibility would be changing encounter/daily powers so that they are recharge powers that you don't start combat with available. The advantage of this is that it allows for more variance in power design (a power with a recharge 6+ would be allowed to be significantly stronger than a power that's recharge 4+) as well as another type of bonus that leaders/etc could provide (like an at-will that provides a +1 bonus to recharge rolls for one ally within 5). If I were to implement that, I'd probably make it so that there is only a single encounter charged at a time and a single recharge roll at the start of your turn with the required roll determined by the last used encounter power.

UrielAwakened

2016-02-27, 10:14 PM

Not really. 4e's skill system has the problem of everyone getting better at everything at more or less the same rate. Being higher level makes you better at swimming, lying, and history in equal measure. There's also the issue of the skill DC treadmill, where the DM needs to surround the PC's with ever-slipperier walls, thicker doors, and more inexplicably skeptical NPC's in order for their skill checks to have any possibility of failure. There's no room in 4e for the cunning peasant who manages to trick an evil sorcerer king, or the mighty warrior who couldn't name all the gods to save his life, despite there being ample precedent for both of these in the pulp fantasy stories that 4e seeks to emulate.

4e's skill system technically does its job, but there's ample room for improvement.

Okay but that makes sense.

An epic mage is of course better at all of those things. Because they've been adventuring long enough to become an epic mage. They can jump farther because raw arcane energy courses through their body and elevates their physical abilities. They can bluff better because they're an awe-inspiring figure that people take for their word.

The epic warrior is better at magic because he's been surviving spells being flung in his face for 20 levels. The epic Rogue is better at nature because he almost died eating that flower 20 levels ago. On and on and on.

The 4e skill system makes the most sense of any D&D skill system I've encountered.

And that's not to say that 4e's skill system is especially good. No D&D skill system is good. But if you want to stick with "Here's a DC, compare it" it's as good as it's gonna get.

What you could do is a middle-ground of sorts that allows everyone to contribute but still gives the ability to specialize. The problem is there are too many ways to boost a skill like Arcana through the stratosphere, making it pointless for anyone else to use it.

I have a solution but it also involves a rework of solo monsters so TO BE CONTINUED.

Shimeran

2016-02-27, 10:48 PM

For the first, the main reason I dislike the static bonuses is that it's too easy to stack them up and guarantee success. If a player can outright guarantee success on something that's supposed to be dramatically important, what's the point? The best solution, as I see it, is to replace skill training with a bonus die that grows as you become ever more proficient. Start it off as a d4 and each incremental bonus (some bonuses, like training would count for more) increases it by one level (like with weapon damage die and size).

Hmm. Not a bad idea really. I think an early version of the 5e playtest mentioned something like that. I will say I think auto-success is fine, possibly even desirable, on routine tasks in their area of expertise. A legendary acrobat, for example, should probably be able to walk a tie rope blindfolded under normal circumstance without a real change of failure. However, running across a narrow beam while being shot at should still have an element of risk for them.

Any suggestion on handling that split? Maybe combine a "take 10" variant with traits the let you ignore specific penalties. Something like "You can take the average when not threatened" and "ignore blinded penalties" would work in the above example.

I will say the dice size mechanic look very good at constraining the result tier appropriate tasks. I'm half tempted to suggest using that for ability scores in place of the bonus.

Honestly, I suspect at least some static mods will work their way in unless we specifically target them, which I have some reservations about.

For the second, I've always disliked how, with skill checks, you either succeed completely or fail completely. Other systems have dealt with this by having different levels of success based upon how your roll related to the DC (e.g. rolling more 5 less than the DC is less of a failure than 5 less and rolling more than 10 higher than what is needed is a greater success than normal), but, honestly, I've always found that clunky, especially since it really complicates DCs and doesn't really provide much in the way of a narrative guideline for what happens.

I've started putting out ideas along those lines. Specifically, the sample power write up I did included 2 success lines, one for low fixed DC and another based on the target's defenses. I don't think that complicates DC much as there's only 2 of them and it's pretty easy to parse out narratively what failing to meet each DC means.

My solution to this is basically to use the same mechanics as attacks, insofar as you make one roll to determine whether or not you succeeded (with a low chance for a critical success) and a second roll to determine how well you succeeded. Skills would still have DCs relative to level and skill challenges would replace required successes with what amounts to "skill hp" (and would also do away with the whole "XXX successes before 3 failures" terribleness that skill challenges as written have; the limitation should be a number of rounds so that people with bad skill bonuses don't feel like they can't do anything without hurting the group).

I could see something like this. Some ideas lend themselves fairly readily to this, just as use social skills to wear down someone's opposition to an idea.

The entire point of separate skills into physical/mental/social was to force players to diversify their chosen skills. It would no longer be possible to create a character who *only* has social skills, which prevents people from making characters that are incapable of acting usefully in skill challenges that aren't directly relevant to their specifically selected area of expertise (especially since physical/mental/social is basically the divide that skill challenges make).

This can work well for diversifying skills, though I'd actually suggest refocusing the groups on common challenge types faced by adventurers. The social category is fine on it's own and mental is a good stand investigative or other info gathering challenges. Physical is bit broad though. I find it's usually less a case of needing physique skills and more needing an infiltrator, navigator, or medic.

The sticky point though is that these efforts are diluted if we let other bonuses force the gap back open again. For example, giving a 4e Fighter diplomacy for free doesn't help matters much as even if they didn't dump stat charisma, it's unlikely they kept using their picks to bump it. That means they're taking an effective -3 penalty to social checks from that alone.

Skill Tricks

Becoming trained in a skill opens up skill trick slots in that skill. Trained skills gain additional skill trick slots as you gain levels.

Basic skill tricks:
Ability Switch (You may change which ability this skill is linked to. For example, you can use this skill trick to link Intimidation to Strength instead of Charisma.)
Skill Replacement (Choose another skill. You may use this skill in place of the chosen skill when appropriate.)
Quick Action (If this skill is normally a move action or a major action, you may use it as a minor action instead.)

It's basically just a more freeform version of skill powers. The mechanic advances your skills not by piling on numeric bonuses, but by broadening your skills' capabilities.

Your thoughts?

Yeah, that lines up pretty nicely with what I was thinking of to replace deeper specialization. Maybe throw in some kind of "take 10" option since skilled users shouldn't fail on routine tasks.

It doesn't need to be healing surges neccesarily, that's just one idea. But making encounter powers cost *something* would make skirmishes less of a nonissue.

Well right now skirmishes don't even work as you'd have to lower monster hp for them, so presumably keeping the damage high would reduce how much we'd have to lower it. That being said, using a alpha strike skirmish killer seems like it would diminish the feeling of said encounter power to even more of a standard operating procedure.

I will say I'm not a fan of the current alpha strike approach 4e favors. The heavy hitting part feels nice, but the long tail on combats is a pain. It's also pretty anti-climactic. Narratively, a more escalation based approach has a definite appeal, stating with basic techniques and pulling out more advanced ones as the battle progresses. There's actually some precedence for that in real world sword techniques as some advanced moves are risky enough you really don't want to open with them.

That's a cool idea. Lets say that magic items give you a small bonus if you're the same level as them or higher (so magic items never STOP being useful), but if you're lower level they help you more. Would require playtesting, but in theory it sounds good.

Well too be honest it we drop "my only magical thing is that I'm magical" weapons you'd still have some of that. For example, flaming swords provide access to fire damage even if they're underleveled. That being said, If we wanted to keep a nod to +x weapons in place, you could restrict the bonus to damage rolls.

Maybe skills can increase in a similar way to abilities. Like, every fourth level in 4e, you can increase two of your ability scores. Maybe we can do a similar thing, where every X levels you can pick one or two skills to improve by Y amount.

Maybe. It depends on how many there are, but the more gradients there are the closer we get to skill point territory. Honestly, I'd prefer parsing out how many levels of skill focus we want and going from there. The 2 tiered bit in the last post gives "I know what I'm doing" and "I rely on this skill on a daily basis" as the divisions. I'm inclined to say if you can't give ready names to each level of skill focus you've probably gone too fine grained for it to help with characterization.

Yes. Though again, we'll have to be careful to avoid leaving noncasters in the dust. If casters get even a tenth of the noncombat utility spells that they had in 3.5, noncasters will need something pretty substantial of their own to make up for it.

So don't make it a caster thing. Make it an "everyone gets utility powers, casters just happen to use magic in theirs" thing and power source the utilities of other classes appropriately. For example, maybe the telepath can read you mind, you the epic rogue or warrior is good enough at reading you intent that might as well have read it.

4e is designed for dramatic, cinematic combat. The short burst fights that can only really threaten to deal tiny bits of damage don't really fit within that paradigm.

Yeah, fights that don't cost resources can be skipped over or merged into a large challenge. The thing is what the long combat complaints some players would like fights that take fewer rounds while still having a reasonable change of having a significant cost.

I'm not familiar with 13th Age's escalation die, but I do support the idea that there should be some limitation that either prevents or discourages players from throwing out their biggest powers at the very start of combat, especially since it so often results in an absolutely massive alpha strike on the part of the party that can pretty easily render an encounter irrelevant.

The escalation die is a d6 that starts at 1 and moves up to the next highest number each rounds. Opponents on both sides can add that die value to their attack rolls.

I agree with you on the alpha strike issues. Honestly, I half wonder if WotC got their encounter mechanics reversed. Monsters actually work fairly well with an alpha strike as their short lived and it's let's them bloody the party's nose with less chance of wiping the party. In contrast, PCs could really use a mechanic like recharge powers to help keep their power up and keep long fights from dragging out.

An epic mage is of course better at all of those things. Because they've been adventuring long enough to become an epic mage. They can jump farther because raw arcane energy courses through their body and elevates their physical abilities. They can bluff better because they're an awe-inspiring figure that people take for their word.

The epic warrior is better at magic because he's been surviving spells being flung in his face for 20 levels. The epic Rogue is better at nature because he almost died eating that flower 20 levels ago. On and on and on.

The 4e skill system makes the most sense of any D&D skill system I've encountered.

Well said and a solid argument for at least some level of competence bonus.

How about we tie that to the fiction and give it the appearance of an extended skill or background. For example, warrior and rogues have the "worldly" to reflect their broad experiences with everything, mages have something like "infused with magic" or "master of cantrips", clergy have "divine guidance", and so on.

ThePurple

2016-02-27, 11:35 PM

I will say I think auto-success is fine, possibly even desirable, on routine tasks in their area of expertise.

This is really where a GM should just not bother rolling. Skill checks should only be made when it is dramatically important. I would basically make it a rule that the only times you actually have to make a roll is when it's either part of combat (including pre-combat prepatory events such as attempting to sneak up on your enemies) or part of a skill challenge. Any other time you want to do something with your skills, you just don't bother rolling.

I will say the dice size mechanic look very good at constraining the result tier appropriate tasks. I'm half tempted to suggest using that for ability scores in place of the bonus.

Honestly, I suspect at least some static mods will work their way in unless we specifically target them, which I have some reservations about.[/quote]

I would agree that there definitely need to be some static bonuses, but they should be very limited. The static modifiers I'd probably keep would be a gear bonus (and have it so that gear for skills scales in the same way as gear for combat; this doesn't necessarily mean that your tools have to be magical, just that they have an enhancement bonus) and half-level (just to represent the generalist knowledge that adventurers pick up adventuring).

Of course, part and parcel of this idea is that skill checks are split into separate rolls for whether you succeeded and another for how *well* you succeeded so that there's a level of dilution where bonuses are concerned. A +2 bonus to the skill checks isn't as powerful in this system as it is in a single roll system, as long as you prevent or limit which bonuses can bleed over between the two.

I could see something like this. Some ideas lend themselves fairly readily to this, just as use social skills to wear down someone's opposition to an idea.

Any skill challenge that actually makes sense as a skill challenge (e.g. you need multiple successes to succeed) would work. Even if you want to do a multi-stage skill challenge (like, for example, an investigation) where it starts off as a mental skill challenge (investigating the crime scene), transitions into a social skill challenge (searching the community for the culprit), and then finally finishes off as a physical skill challenge (actually cornering the culprit when he tries to run away; actually apprehending him would probably be part of this as well unless he lead the investigators into an ambush of his friends, at which point it becomes a combat) would still work. You'd just have it start mental, transition to social at 30 success points, and then transition to physical at 50, before finishing at 70 (or whatever number; kinda pulling these out of my ass).

This can work well for diversifying skills, though I'd actually suggest refocusing the groups on common challenge types faced by adventurers. The social category is fine on it's own and mental is a good stand investigative or other info gathering challenges. Physical is bit broad though. I find it's usually less a case of needing physique skills and more needing an infiltrator, navigator, or medic.

For physical skills, I would probably break them down into Athletics, Stealth, Thievery, and Endurance (I've always felt that Acrobatics should be folded into Athletics; Acrobatics checks would simply be DEX + Athletics whereas normal Athletics checks would be STR + Athletics; Endurance v. CON + Athletics gets kind of problematic, though I think it should remain, even if I can't come up with a compelling reason at the moment).

For social, you've got Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, and Insight.

For mental, you've got Arcana, Dungeoneering, History, Nature, and Religion.

Perception, Heal, and Streetwise have always been weird skills to categorize, though I'd probably just allow them to belong to multiple categories (Heal as physical and mental; Streetwise as mental and social; Perception as physical and mental).

So don't make it a caster thing. Make it an "everyone gets utility powers, casters just happen to use magic in theirs" thing and power source the utilities of other classes appropriately. For example, maybe the telepath can read you mind, you the epic rogue or warrior is good enough at reading you intent that might as well have read it.

I'm not sure how relevant this is to the discussion, but one of the ideas that I used in my rework of 4e was to do away with class based utility powers completely, and make it so that utility features (so that it's not just powers and includes passive benefits, like the Wilderness Knacks for Essentials Rangers and Druids) are selected based upon your power source.

Part of this is because I've always felt that the power sources really need more cohesive elements to bring them together. The other part is that it makes for much less work. If people are concerned with balance, I would honestly suggest that, if it's balanced in the hands of X class but overpowered in the hands of Y class, it should probably be a class feature (even if it's gained at a later level) and not a utility power.

I agree with you on the alpha strike issues. Honestly, I half wonder if WotC got their encounter mechanics reversed. Monsters actually work fairly well with an alpha strike as their short lived and it's let's them bloody the party's nose with less chance of wiping the party. In contrast, PCs could really use a mechanic like recharge powers to help keep their power up and keep long fights from dragging out.

I'd have to agree with you that it seems like the power usage paradigms for monsters and players were placed wrongly. I don't quite think that they got them reversed, in the sense that they designed both systems and then decided that "monsters get this one and players get this one". I think they originally designed the at-will/encounter/daily paradigm for players and the recharge construct evolved out of trying to apply a similar construct to monster powers (it doesn't really make much sense to give monsters encounter powers because monsters should really only be in a single encounter so the player construct just doesn't work).

The more I think about it, the more I like having the availability of encounter attack powers governed by a recharge die, as long as there's something present to prevent bad luck from totally screwing someone out of encounter powers for an entire encounter (probably something like a cumulative +1 bonus to recharge roll every time you fail a recharge roll until such time as you succeed at a recharge roll). Non-attack encounter powers should still be limited to a single use per encounter though, mainly because the tactical benefit of some utility powers is pretty nuts (imagine if Shield or any number of escape style powers could recharge; wizards tend to not get attacked in consecutive turns so they'd kind of be power houses).

Blake Hannon

2016-02-27, 11:37 PM

I'm disinclined to support the "add growing sizes of dice to your skill roll," as it complicates the elegant simplicity of the d20 system. Also, like Shimeran, I don't think auto-success is necessarily a bad thing...and even if it is, you can rule that a roll of 1 indicates a fumble no matter how high your bonus is. Even a trained professional can screw up under pressure (when you're not under pressure, you can just take 10 or 20).

I think a three-tiered system for skill training sounds good. Something like:

Untrained: You just use your relevant ability bonus, plus any racial or feat bonuses you might have.
Trained: As untrained, +5.
Master: As untrained, +10.

If we want to preserve some element of the worldly, omnicompetent hero, we can also add a tier bonus. Say, at 11th and 21st level, PC's gain an additional +1 bonus to all d20 rolls. Skills, attacks, everything.

ThePurple

2016-02-27, 11:57 PM

I'm disinclined to support the "add growing sizes of dice to your skill roll," as it complicates the elegant simplicity of the d20 system.

I'll agree that it's more complex and does break with the elegance of the d20 system, I don't think it's that much worse than having to track conditionals and adding up static skill bonuses. It's just that, instead of tracking all of your bonuses as a static value you add to your d20, it's just figuring out which die you roll along with your d20. It's still fundamentally the same thing, just with an extra die in your hand.

Blake Hannon

2016-02-28, 12:00 AM

I'll agree that it's more complex and does break with the elegance of the d20 system, I don't think it's that much worse than having to track conditionals and adding up static skill bonuses. It's just that, instead of tracking all of your bonuses as a static value you add to your d20, it's just figuring out which die you roll along with your d20. It's still fundamentally the same thing, just with an extra die in your hand.

Conditionals are still an issue we need to tackle though. Adding dice to skill rolls doesn't replace conditionals, it adds a new level of complication on top of them.

I'm against straying away from the core mechanic of 1d20+x until we've exhausted all other options.

Shimeran

2016-02-28, 01:29 AM

This is really where a GM should just not bother rolling. Skill checks should only be made when it is dramatically important.

I may have misspoke on calling them routine tasks. I was referring to task that after a certain amount of practice and training should be able to be used reliably even (sometimes especially) under stress.

Edit: Arg. I had a full example here which apparently got eaten. Here's the recap.
Consider tightrope walking. I'd certainly have an untrained character roll if it's up in the air and there's a cost for failure. I may even do that for a novice acrobat. However, a professional should have that as close to a certainty as possible. Even a 10% chance to fall looks abysmal given how many shows they'd have. Yes, there are multiple mechanical work around you could use for that. I just wanted to show why training dropping the chance of something you'd otherwise roll for to a certainty is appealing.

The static modifiers I'd probably keep would be a gear bonus (and have it so that gear for skills scales in the same way as gear for combat; this doesn't necessarily mean that your tools have to be magical, just that they have an enhancement bonus) and half-level (just to represent the generalist knowledge that adventurers pick up adventuring).

Gear bonuses are the first thing I'd throw under the bus. Why have your equipment be one of the few things that give you reliability?

The more I think about it, the more I like having the availability of encounter attack powers governed by a recharge die, as long as there's something present to prevent bad luck from totally screwing someone out of encounter powers for an entire encounter (probably something like a cumulative +1 bonus to recharge roll every time you fail a recharge roll until such time as you succeed at a recharge roll).

I'm not sure I'd use the mechanic for all encounter powers. One option to consider is instead of using a separate recharge roll, charge up the powers on poor performance. For example, have a low natural roll on attacks, charge an encounter attack power. That means the longer it takes to get the power, the better your streak is. You can even do something like say add the number of rounds since the last encounter power to that roll under number.

Untrained: You just use your relevant ability bonus, plus any racial or feat bonuses you might have.
Trained: As untrained, +5.
Master: As untrained, +10.

The ranks work well enough, but that's way too big a bonus spread. At +10 you can't make it even work checking the master's skill without driving the untrained character below a 50/50 change. That's pretty heavily in "If the expert bothers rolling, so one else you even try" territory. Good for showcasing master awesomeness, bad for getting everyone in on the challenge. Honestly, even the +5 trained bumb is unweildy. I'd rather see something like a +2 for trained, maybe with an added "immune to untrained penalties" if you really need to push the ranger up.

Honestly, I think we need to pin down as a group how we expect a specialist and a party member with baseline ability to contribute to the same challenge, such as diplomacy, stealth, or investigation.

I will say bringing the baseline up to a certain guaranteed level does seem like it opens up more options for adventure design at high levels.

Blake Hannon

2016-02-28, 03:28 AM

Point.

Maybe make the bonuses smaller (say, +2 for trained, +5 for master) and say that being trained in a skill lets you take 10 even in stressful or time sensitive situations? You can then get an additional perk at the master level, maybe a "roll twice, pick the highest" thing.

Philemonite

2016-02-28, 05:02 AM

If flat +5 to trained skills doesn't work well how about 5e style advantage on trained skills? It provides reliability, without giving higher potential.

Shimeran

2016-02-28, 08:55 AM

If we're going to use speciality rules for different ranks anyway, maybe we should fold those into the skill trick approach Ursus Spelaeus posted.

Come to think of it, we maybe one of the perks could be "You can roll 2d12 instead of 1d20 for checks with this skill". That's worth a +2 bonus on average, is easy to remember, and gives the character a bit more predicatability. A quick check with AnyDice (http://anydice.com/) shows that also increase the crit chance to just over 10%, should be carry that over to skill checks.

In any case, I'd like to float out a couple potential guidelines so we can pin down the spread. How's this for a start?
Getting below even odds (50/50) of contributing is likely to be overly frustrating.
Any roll with really low odds of failing is not going to be interesting most of the time. I'm short on hard numbers here, but I suspect past the cut off is somewhere in the 80% to 90% range.

So for a straight d20 + mods >= DC, we're looking at around 7 points of spread. That would need to include all specialization bonuses, including ability score bonuses. Keeping the ability bonus spread constrained to 4 gives use 3 points to work with.

These numbers change up a bit if we start using other mechanics. Using the 2d12 example, That brings the odds up to 68.75% (equal to ~+4). Incidentally, using 1d10+1d12 gives us 62.50% (equal to +2 to +3). That still gives us some leeway for ability bonuses, through we'd want to use a light touch.

Granted, multi-DC mechanics can get around that, but we'd need to keep an eye on the added complexity of that.

Nifft

2016-02-28, 10:20 AM

If flat +5 to trained skills doesn't work well how about 5e style advantage on trained skills? It provides reliability, without giving higher potential.

I really like how fast the 5e Advantage / Disadvantage system works in play.

That said, the 5e system does have some static bonuses which do provide higher potential -- but they're VERY limited.

- - -

Regarding using an increasing "proficiency die" instead of a static bonus, there is one situation where that would be nice: if you want to give a bonus which is not the regular Advantage, you can apply the Advantage mechanic to the proficiency die instead of the d20. (I.e. roll d20 + 2x proficiency dice and keep the highest proficiency die.)

For example, the 5e spell Bless allows the recipients to add +1d4 to a bunch of rolls and that's not great because it tends to violate bounded accuracy. If Bless gave proficiency die advantage instead, then bounded accuracy would be preserved even though the rolls tend to be higher.

Similarly for 5e Guidance.

JBPuffin

2016-02-28, 02:59 PM

I really like how fast the 5e Advantage / Disadvantage system works in play.

That said, the 5e system does have some static bonuses which do provide higher potential -- but they're VERY limited.

- - -

Regarding using an increasing "proficiency die" instead of a static bonus, there is one situation where that would be nice: if you want to give a bonus which is not the regular Advantage, you can apply the Advantage mechanic to the proficiency die instead of the d20. (I.e. roll d20 + 2x proficiency dice and keep the highest proficiency die.)

For example, the 5e spell Bless allows the recipients to add +1d4 to a bunch of rolls and that's not great because it tends to violate bounded accuracy. If Bless gave proficiency die advantage instead, then bounded accuracy would be preserved even though the rolls tend to be higher.

Similarly for 5e Guidance.

Note to self - when we finally play 5e, make this a houserule...

Advantage is one of 5e's better innovations - I'd encourage using it. I'm also a fan of the extra die for training, or even (and this is crazy) using 5e's proficiency bonus idea in lieu of half-level. It doesn't need to be bounded, just...tighter.

Nifft

2016-02-28, 03:06 PM

even (and this is crazy) using 5e's proficiency bonus idea in lieu of half-level.

That's actually a really neat idea.

Static: Ability + Tier bonus (which scales like the 5e proficiency bonus) = (-1 to +5) + (+2 to +6) = [+1 to +11]

Dynamic: d20 + Proficiency die (1d4 to 1d10) = [2-24, 2-30]

Total range is [+1 - +41].

That seems pretty workable. Yeah, you can't really hope to hit AC 41 at level 1, but that's okay. It's the top AC possible in the game.

Ursus Spelaeus

2016-02-28, 03:09 PM

I like to roll my d20 and my damage dice at the same time. Here's a variation on advantage that makes use of that (and if you guys don't use this idea, I just might use it in my own homebrew)

Make your attack roll and your damage roll at the same time.
If your damage roll is higher than your attack roll, or if your damage roll is high enough to beat the target's AC, you can swap them.

*edit*
But the discussion regards skills. Here's an idea then:

Adventuring items have dice assigned to them just like weapons have dice assigned to them.
Roll up to two item dice with your d20 when you attempt a skill check. If your item dice roll higher than your d20, you can use that result instead.

Shimeran

2016-02-28, 09:20 PM

All this talk of rerolls reminds me of a trick to make ability scores themselves useful. Namely, have an effect trigger whenever you roll under the score. This could be a reroll, a flat bonus, or a bonus die. The net effect is because the scores map so nicely to the d20 range you can use the scores themselves without needing to strip out modifiers, just an idea for those fond of the scores.

I'm also a fan of the extra die for training, or even (and this is crazy) using 5e's proficiency bonus idea in lieu of half-level. It doesn't need to be bounded, just...tighter.

Isn't that just starting with a bigger base and making the scaling slower? If so, I wouldn't really call it crazy. We've talked about dropping the total bonus growth from +level to +1/2 or +1/3 level.

Static: Ability + Tier bonus (which scales like the 5e proficiency bonus) = (-1 to +5) + (+2 to +6) = [+1 to +11]

Dynamic: d20 + Proficiency die (1d4 to 1d10) = [2-24, 2-30]

Total range is [+1 - +41].

That seems pretty workable. Yeah, you can't really hope to hit AC 41 at level 1, but that's okay. It's the top AC possible in the game.

I'm really not liking those odds. That means at max bonuses you can only hit AC 41 with maxed rolls, a 0.5% chance.

Maybe we should take a step back and set up our benchmarks then fill in the mechanics from there. How about a scenario to help focus this a bit. Let's say trained peasant archer (level 1) fires an arrow at the tarrasque. What happens? What if a fully equipped epic warrior (level 30) does so?

I'd be inclined to say the peasant archer is out of luck. For the tarrasque to function as a proper walking apocalypse, it should be basically immune to militias barring extraordinary circumstances like some kind of blessing or legendary leadership. This is likely due to the beast armored hide, represented by a high armor defense. (DR is another possibility, though the subtraction on all damage roles is a slowdown unless we give something that pierces it. Hmm.. tier based DR could work.) In contrast the epic warrior should ideally be hitting at least half the time, with about 2 hits per miss being preferable.

Along the same lines, how do we handle seemingly impossible tasks. Though the name escapes me, I recall hearing of stunt in celtic mythology where a hero literally lept of spears in midflight. I kind of feel epic heros should be able to do the kind of things you might see in an actual epic tail. Now whether they do that through high skill, granting difficulty reductions, or through some kind of skill power is up in the air, but I wanted to throw that out there.

Ursus Spelaeus

2016-02-28, 09:25 PM

Along the same lines, how do we handle seemingly impossible tasks. Though the name escapes me, I recall hearing of stunt in celtic mythology where a hero literally lept of spears in midflight. I kind of feel epic heros should be able to do the kind of things you might see in an actual epic tail. Now whether they do that through high skill, granting difficulty reductions, or through some kind of skill power is up in the air, but I wanted to throw that out there.

Cu Chulainn.

We're probably going to want some really good rules for stunts.

ThePurple

2016-02-28, 09:45 PM

We're probably going to want some really good rules for stunts.

I have a general houserule when players want to stunt (though they're not really informed of it so they can't really abuse it). Basically, once per encounter, when a player wants to do some crazy stunt (like doing a Matrix-style wall run/jump while firing their bow), I have them roll an appropriate skill check with a High DC (what amounts to a stunt at heroic tier really shouldn't be the same as a stunt at epic tier) and then make the attack roll with a -5 penalty. If the attack hits, it's a guaranteed crit (if it's multiple attacks, only one of them becomes a crit). If it misses, there's no penalty beyond the normal stuff.

If it were a specifically codified rule, there would definitely need to be measures in place to prevent players abusing it since I *know* that if my players knew about the rule, there would be at least one player who goes out of his way to do absurd stunts just for the bonus.

Nifft

2016-02-28, 10:34 PM

I'm really not liking those odds. That means at max bonuses you can only hit AC 41 with maxed rolls, a 0.5% chance. Uh, no. It means you don't create monsters with an AC near the maximum possible AC unless you want them to be nearly impossible to hit.

Maybe we should take a step back and set up our benchmarks then fill in the mechanics from there. That's exactly what I was doing.

I have a general houserule when players want to stunt (...) Were we the only group who used Page 42 as-is?

It seemed good enough as a basis for stunts.

Dacia Brabant

2016-02-28, 11:00 PM

I'm intrigued by the idea of having a stunt mechanic, but I don't feel that mechanics that are specifically intended for actions by PCs should be hidden from the players by design. I understand why an individual DM may need to make that the case for their specific playing group, but that's really more suitable for house rules.

I hate to keep coming back to Dragon Age, but the stunt system there triggers when players roll doubles on two of the designated 3d6 used in resolving attacks, with the third d6 (required to be a separate color from the other two) providing the stunt points available to purchase stunts for that specific action.

If we're considering a different method of generating randomness than the ubiquitous d20, whether it be 2d12 (this seems like a high spread though; maybe 2d10?), then a roll of doubles could allow you to roll their stunt die/dice to either add to the result for hitting the DC, or if your roll already met the DC then allow you to perform one or more stunts--or some other way to achieve a higher level of success than you would just by beating the DC as normal.

Blake Hannon

2016-02-29, 01:27 AM

All this talk of rerolls reminds me of a trick to make ability scores themselves useful. Namely, have an effect trigger whenever you roll under the score. This could be a reroll, a flat bonus, or a bonus die. The net effect is because the scores map so nicely to the d20 range you can use the scores themselves without needing to strip out modifiers, just an idea for those fond of the scores.

Isn't that just starting with a bigger base and making the scaling slower? If so, I wouldn't really call it crazy. We've talked about dropping the total bonus growth from +level to +1/2 or +1/3 level.

I'm really not liking those odds. That means at max bonuses you can only hit AC 41 with maxed rolls, a 0.5% chance.

Maybe we should take a step back and set up our benchmarks then fill in the mechanics from there. How about a scenario to help focus this a bit. Let's say trained peasant archer (level 1) fires an arrow at the tarrasque. What happens? What if a fully equipped epic warrior (level 30) does so?

I'd be inclined to say the peasant archer is out of luck. For the tarrasque to function as a proper walking apocalypse, it should be basically immune to militias barring extraordinary circumstances like some kind of blessing or legendary leadership. This is likely due to the beast armored hide, represented by a high armor defense. (DR is another possibility, though the subtraction on all damage roles is a slowdown unless we give something that pierces it. Hmm.. tier based DR could work.) In contrast the epic warrior should ideally be hitting at least half the time, with about 2 hits per miss being preferable.

Along the same lines, how do we handle seemingly impossible tasks. Though the name escapes me, I recall hearing of stunt in celtic mythology where a hero literally lept of spears in midflight. I kind of feel epic heros should be able to do the kind of things you might see in an actual epic tail. Now whether they do that through high skill, granting difficulty reductions, or through some kind of skill power is up in the air, but I wanted to throw that out there.

I guess my issue with the power scale in dnd is the multiple tiers of walking apocalypse. As it is, a level 15 solo monster can't be hit by the level one peasant, and is functionally a walking apocalypse to normal people. A level 30 solo is a walking apocalypse TO the walking apocalypses. By the time a character is powerful enough to even think about fighting the tarrasque, he's been living in a la la land where absolutely nothing in the "normal" world is relevant to him for at least ten levels.

I think the max AC should be closer to 30 than 40. The strongest monsters are immune to militias, but there are no monsters that are immune to the monsters that are immune to militias.

Regarding skills and stunts...

I think having a larger spread in skill bonuses might be okay at higher level. At low level, everyone can contribute to every task, but maybe once you get into the high paragon and epic tier you just need to acknowledge that only a master X can handle certain tasks?

Alternately, a stunt mechanic. Make it so that people who are Master ranked in a given skill can attempt to do things that normal people just aren't allowed to attempt, but whose DC's aren't actually significantly higher.

Shimeran

2016-02-29, 01:34 AM

Cu Chulainn.

Ah, I figured it might be as he was the first to spring to mind, but I was having trouble find reference to that particular feat.

We're probably going to want some really good rules for stunts.

This is where have power creation guidelines worked out as we can use that to rig up a page 42 equivalent.

I have a general houserule when players want to stunt (though they're not really informed of it so they can't really abuse it). Basically, once per encounter, when a player wants to do some crazy stunt (like doing a Matrix-style wall run/jump while firing their bow), I have them roll an appropriate skill check with a High DC (what amounts to a stunt at heroic tier really shouldn't be the same as a stunt at epic tier) and then make the attack roll with a -5 penalty. If the attack hits, it's a guaranteed crit (if it's multiple attacks, only one of them becomes a crit). If it misses, there's no penalty beyond the normal stuff.

If it were a specifically codified rule, there would definitely need to be measures in place to prevent players abusing it since I *know* that if my players knew about the rule, there would be at least one player who goes out of his way to do absurd stunts just for the bonus.

I'd have thought the combination of hard skill check, -5 attack penalty, and per encounter limit would be measures enough. Granted, a free crit is very nice.

One option I've toyed with in the past is to make stunts a more midling trade, but grant combat advantage the first time they're used to represent catching foes off guard.

Uh, no. It means you don't create monsters with an AC near the maximum possible AC unless you want them to be nearly impossible to hit.

My mistake then. I must have misread what you were going for. Let me throw out some quick numbers on this end and see if where we end up.

Let's start by looking at how fast monster defenses scale, as having quick monster stats can be a godsend for DMs. If I'm reading the thread right, the current +1/level is considered to steep. I'd be inclined to agree, especially at that means end of tier enemies start getting into the unhittable range and even a few levels higher are notably frustrating to fight. I've mentioned before that I'd like miltia proof monster to exist, likely around epic. 1/2 level scaling could do the job fairly well, putting militia proof foes at end of paragon. If we want to move that back to end of epic, we'd use 1/3 level scaling.

To keep up with 1/2 level scaling we'll need to match the +15 increase by level 30 or +10 for 1/3 level scaling.

The question from there becomes how to divy up that increase. Matching the defense scaling monsters get is the simplest approach, but let's look at some of the alternatives.

If we use a proficiency die we can only gain up to +4 scaling unless we use multiple dice assuming a 1d4 die at 1st level and a 1d12 by 30th. That leaves +11 (1/2 level) or +6 (1/3 level) left to cover. That second option means the tier bonus approach you mentioned could work for 1/3 level scaling at a rate or 1/5 level.

The bonus die can cover up to +6 worth if we don't use it for 1st level proficiency, instead using a flat modifier or something like the 2d12 swap. In fact, the bonus die might work well to replace the competence bonus as it make that more hit or miss. That leaves us +9 (1/2 level) or +4 (1/3 level). That's not so tidy, but can be distributed evenly enough.

Granted, we haven't factored ability score growth, if any into either of these. We've got room to allow for that, but unless all scores go up this may make keeping the competence spread contained at higher levels more difficult.

If we're considering a different method of generating randomness than the ubiquitous d20, whether it be 2d12 (this seems like a high spread though; maybe 2d10?), then a roll of doubles could allow you to roll their stunt die/dice to either add to the result for hitting the DC, or if your roll already met the DC then allow you to perform one or more stunts--or some other way to achieve a higher level of success than you would just by beating the DC as normal.

The 2d12 suggestion was meant to be an alternative trained skill perk. In short, untrained use would be 1d20, trained up would be 2d12. The high spread is to push the trained average up from the untrained d20, to the tune of around +2.

As for the stunt mechanics, those work nicely in Dragon Age. However, they do create a very opportunistic feel as you can only stunt when the dice say you can. I can see that working very well from some classes, especially as an encounter power like mechanic. However, I'm not sure it's the best approach for all classes.

Granted, now that's got me thinking you could set if so if they roll low (possibly under their ability score if we keep those) you can offer them a trade. A kind of "accept a drawback or do something awesome/risky and you can push that result up a bit" deal. That's got a vaguely Apocalypse World feel with some definite appeal.

ThePurple

2016-02-29, 11:41 AM

Alternately, a stunt mechanic. Make it so that people who are Master ranked in a given skill can attempt to do things that normal people just aren't allowed to attempt, but whose DC's aren't actually significantly higher.

The more we talk about it, the more it feels (to me, at least), that this is really what utility powers should be doing. They can provide the proper level of limitations in use on the basis of the stunt itself rather than an arbitrary limitation. Maybe some utility powers should have the "stunt" keyword in them and allow certain feats to improve stunt powers and/or the "stunt" keyword, because they would all require successful skill checks, basically have the utility power equivalent of "reliable" (e.g. if you fail the skill check, it isn't consumed).

Were we the only group who used Page 42 as-is?

It seemed good enough as a basis for stunts.

I never really used page 42 because the numbers are really bad. The damage provided is generally laughable compared to what a well designed player of the appropriate level is able to put out with an at-will. If an attack is going to require a skill check before you even make the attack roll, it should do more than what the player's default is supposed to be.

Other than that, page 42 is largely what I do for stunts: skill check of appropriate DC and then attack roll (albeit with a penalty). If a player were to try the chandelier move example that the DMG uses, I would probably just say that the player is using a skill in order to make a charge attack (and using a bull rush as part of that charge attack) over unusual terrain, in much the same way that you can use Athletics to jump over a crevasse as part of a charge attack, and use the damage numbers for traps (since the player is basically pushing the monster into a trap that can't trigger itself) if the push manages to get the ogre into the brazier.

I think the most important thing is to decide, from a mechanical standpoint, how exactly we're going to define a stunt because there are a lot of ways that it could be defined. Stunts could be defined as any normal action that also requires a skill check to be made as part of the action, but that feels weird because any time a player jumps over something in the middle of combat as part of a move action, they're technically performing a stunt.

Bruno Carvalho

2016-02-29, 01:22 PM

Lemme try to summarize what we've been discussing so far

1) Skill Training:
Untrained - roll 1d20 for skills
Trained - roll 2d12 for skills

2) Accuracy, defenses and bonuses

Rolls (at combat) are 1d20 + proficiency +stat + other bonuses
Proficiency bonus:
Level 1-5 = +2;
Level 6-10 = +3;
Level 11-15 = +4;
Level 16-20 = +5;
Level 21-25 = +6;
Level 26-30 = +7.

Stat maxes
Level 1 = 20/+5
Level 11 = 22/+6
Level 21 = 24/+7
Level 30 = 26/+8

Assorted/Other bonuses
weapon (are we still giving swords + to hit over axes?) +- 1
Feats/Powers up to +2
Item bonuses (enchantment?) up to +6 (?) (I'm in for removing this one)

Defenses per level (Armor/Ref/Wil/Fort)
lvl | Good defenses (a maxed warrior will hit on 11+) | Poor Defenses (a maxed warrior will hit on 7+)
lvl 1 | 18 | 14
lvl 6 | 20 | 16
lvl 11 | 23 | 19
lvl 16 | 25 | 21
lvl 21 | 28 | 24
lvl 26 | 30 | 26
lvl 30 | 32 | 28

This "maxed warrior" can still gain up to +3 bonuses from powers/feats/weapon, so he'll hit with a 8+ even against "good defenses". A non-maxed warrior will be lagging about 5 points behind the maxed warrior, so he'll hit a "good defense" on 16+. What do you guys think?

UrielAwakened

2016-02-29, 02:05 PM

I don't really like...any of that.

4e has some real issues but basically the entire last page has been spent addressing none of them, in lieu of things that make 4e more like, well, 5e.

A great thing about 4e is how easy everything is. Defenses are intuitive. Attack rolls are intuitive. Skill checks, intuitive. It all works based on basically the same mechanic.

Now you want to have two different types of rolls for skill checks, and weird charts where you refer to for defenses, and strange caps on ability scores when nothing within the game lets that get out of control as is.

I just don't see the point to any of it.

If you're concerned about number bloat and progression only being an illusion, don't change the half-level mechanic: Give different rules for creating monsters.

Create a system template for monsters where Minions have one type of action, Standards have two, Elites have 3-4, and Solos have 4-5, which includes a minor action attack, and immediate action, and a set of legendary actions to choose from depending on tier.

THEN add a rule that monsters can be progressed to any other form of threat by changing its subtype and adding/removing 5 levels.

So a level 20 elite can be made into a level 25 standard by removing one ability, or a level 30 minion by removing another, or into a level 15 solo by adding abilities and legendary actions.

Now you have a system where progression can be measured within the game world without overly-complicating the math.

And for the record I love the idea of a stunt mechanic, but giving it a -5 penalty to work is about the worst way to encourage players to use it.

Also:

Let's start by looking at how fast monster defenses scale, as having quick monster stats can be a godsend for DMs. If I'm reading the thread right, the current +1/level is considered to steep. I'd be inclined to agree, especially at that means end of tier enemies start getting into the unhittable range and even a few levels higher are notably frustrating to fight. I've mentioned before that I'd like miltia proof monster to exist, likely around epic. 1/2 level scaling could do the job fairly well, putting militia proof foes at end of paragon. If we want to move that back to end of epic, we'd use 1/3 level scaling.

This is wrong. At the moment monsters scale at a rate that's actually even slower than PCs in terms of to-hit once you factor in the +1 bonus to hit they get from expertise. (PCs get +15 from levels, +6 from enchantments, +8-10 from ability scores. Using 9 that's +30 right there, accounting for everything monsters get from leveling. Base monster AC is 14, so proficiency gives you either +2 or +3 which already is basically a 50/50 hit/miss chance with bad tactics. Add CA from flanking and expertise bonuses and PCs actually scale even faster, which is why you need a level 35 god to challenge even decently-optimized level 30 characters.)

A simple +1 to hit at level 5/15/25 fixes all the problems there, real or imagined. You don't need to reinvent the wheel on attacking/defenses, all you need to do is find a way to shore-up the lacking third NAD that plagues most characters. The easiest way to do that, btw, is to switch from a two-stat system to a three-stat system where each class is encouraged to prioritize one pair in each set in some way (Str or Con, Int or Dex, Wis or Cha). They'd probably be staggered in some way so, by campaign's end, one is about +4 higher than the lowest of the pair, rather than the current gap of like +8 that plagues most builds.

So instead of getting a +1 to two at 4/8/14/18/24/28, and then +1 to all at 11/21, you would get increases to 3 at certain intervals. Maybe every 3 (4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28). Figure out how epic destinies/paragon paths affect your stats, and you're golden.

Another thing I do agree with: Drop the +5 to skill checks for being trained in favor of rolling twice. Simple, clean, and better-represents how someone who has advanced training in something will accomplish it more consistently than someone who doesn't.

Nobody should nat 1 when they're trained in acrobatics unless there are extraordinary circumstances (that .25% chance).

EDIT: I'm actually going to spend some time tonight on a big write-up on a couple things. I firmly believe none of the problems in 4e math lie with the PCs really, it's all the monsters. Since we're on combat now, I'm going to address A) How far off average damage gets in higher tiers, and how to correct it, B) How to give PCs more tactical options in combat without punishing them for it, so things like trips, bullrushes, readied actions, and various stunts become as appealing as "At-will, end turn," and C) Fixing monster design, because hoo boy, for being so clean it's a mess.

Stay tuned.

Dacia Brabant

2016-02-29, 04:21 PM

The 2d12 suggestion was meant to be an alternative trained skill perk. In short, untrained use would be 1d20, trained up would be 2d12. The high spread is to push the trained average up from the untrained d20, to the tune of around +2.

As for the stunt mechanics, those work nicely in Dragon Age. However, they do create a very opportunistic feel as you can only stunt when the dice say you can. I can see that working very well from some classes, especially as an encounter power like mechanic. However, I'm not sure it's the best approach for all classes.

Granted, now that's got me thinking you could set if so if they roll low (possibly under their ability score if we keep those) you can offer them a trade. A kind of "accept a drawback or do something awesome/risky and you can push that result up a bit" deal. That's got a vaguely Apocalypse World feel with some definite appeal.

Right, I see what you mean now, I must have just skimmed over that part. I do like the idea of stunts representing encounter powers, or possibly the method for recharging them, but I agree with ThePurple that we need to define what we mean by stunts.

The more we talk about it, the more it feels (to me, at least), that this is really what utility powers should be doing. They can provide the proper level of limitations in use on the basis of the stunt itself rather than an arbitrary limitation. Maybe some utility powers should have the "stunt" keyword in them and allow certain feats to improve stunt powers and/or the "stunt" keyword, because they would all require successful skill checks, basically have the utility power equivalent of "reliable" (e.g. if you fail the skill check, it isn't consumed).

I agree with this, but I feel this needs to be handled separately from Utility powers as they currently are. I like non-combat Utility powers and Skill powers generally, but unless you're in a specific game where their value exceeds the best combat-oriented ones they're always going to get skipped in favor of stuff like Shield and Invigorating Stride. (Edit: looking back, I see you already mentioned this issue. :smallredface: )

Could we say that, instead of a numerical bonus, training in a skill gives you your choice of a single Utility skill power/stunt/trick/whatever name we choose?

A great thing about 4e is how easy everything is. Defenses are intuitive. Attack rolls are intuitive. Skill checks, intuitive. It all works based on basically the same mechanic.

I agree, and I think that if there's one thing about D&D that I don't want to throw out, it would be its elegance. Too many different ways for adjudicating tasks leads to system bloat, and if one of the goals for this is to reach out to tactical RPG/board game players, I feel we should try to keep the systems-within-systems approach to a minimum.

There was a suggestion a while back that I really liked as far as ability scores and derived stats: having STR/DEX/WIS all contribute to physical attack rolls and CON/INT/CHA all contribute to magical attack rolls. That way, regardless of class you'd by necessity raise stats that contribute to all three NADs because you would need them for your attacks to hit.

Blake Hannon

2016-02-29, 04:43 PM

There was a suggestion a while back that I really liked as far as ability scores and derived stats: having STR/DEX/WIS all contribute to physical attack rolls and CON/INT/CHA all contribute to magical attack rolls. That way, regardless of class you'd by necessity raise stats that contribute to all three NADs because you would need them for your attacks to hit.

I'm a fan of the "NADs are based on the average of two ability bonuses rather than the higher of the two" idea, myself.

On the topic of simplifying things rather than complicating them...

It kind of bothers me that damage is the one thing that requires other sorts of dice besides a d20. I honestly wouldn't be opposed to getting rid of the damage roll entirely and just letting the attack roll determine damage.

Say, each attack has three damage values; one for a glancing hit, one for a normal hit, and one for a crit. If your attack roll only beats the enemy's defense by a small margin,its a glancing blow. If you hit by a large margin, its a crit. Some attacks can also have different effects tied to glancing versus full impacts.

ThePurple

2016-02-29, 04:47 PM

A simple +1 to hit at level 5/15/25 fixes all the problems there, real or imagined.

Or just make it so that expertise provides a static +1 feat bonus to hit.

Honestly, as almost a global rule, unless something is a straight up expected piece of your natural progression (re: not an option the player is expected to be able to do without, like half-level, enhancement bonus, or attribute bonus) and it applies to a d20 roll, it should not scale. One of my house rules is that any item that provides a scaling bonus to skill checks (like the armors that provide enhancement bonus to a given skill, often stealth) instead provides a static +2 bonus. Any item that purely provides the bonus (like a lot of non-big 3 slot items that provides +1 per tier) without any other benefit, I generally either deduct an item of 10 levels higher from the loot they're going to get later on (I tend to do this to any low level magic item that is still incredibly good at higher levels, like the Boots of the Fencing Master because the cost of low level magic items tends to be trivial and quickly outstripped by the benefit, functionally becoming a free bonus otherwise).

You don't need to reinvent the wheel on attacking/defenses, all you need to do is find a way to shore-up the lacking third NAD that plagues most characters. The easiest way to do that, btw, is to switch from a two-stat system to a three-stat system

No, the easiest way is to provide a +1 bonus to 3 stats at levels 4/8/14/18/24/28 instead of just 2. It doesn't require massive reworks of ability lists and allows you to expect the same progression out of all ability mods. If a player opts to double up their stat bonuses to the same pair (e.g. increasing Str, Con and Dex instead of Str, Con, and Cha), they're limiting their tertiary defense of their own volition (probably for a very specific reason) rather than having to do so because of an arbitrary limit the system applies that forces you to always have one defense that doesn't scale properly.

Figure out how epic destinies/paragon paths affect your stats, and you're golden.

This is probably the most important element to fix insofar as PC effectiveness bloat (i.e. why it takes a level 35 god to challenge level 30 PCs). I never found any guidelines for designing PPs and EDs beyond simply trying not to outstrip the existing ones, and, on top of that, every single time I did the math, it looked like PPs and EDs had never been factored into any kind of balance equations. PPs and EDs are basically elements that characters get to use that have no counter from the other side of the GM screen.

Of course, it's entirely possible that was intended in order to make it so that PCs feel ever more impressive and powerful as they scale considering that monsters (insofar as the monsters they end up facing) scale with them, but it's bad math.

Simple, clean, and better-represents how someone who has advanced training in something will accomplish it more consistently than someone who doesn't.

I can see this working pretty well since it adds roughly the same benefit as skill training does as written while limiting the top end performance of players, though it does somewhat conflict with the idea that there should be some stuff that an untrained person just can't manage (e.g. stuff that's very difficult for a trained person should be out of the realm of possibility for someone who's untrained, simply by virtue of skill training making you better, as opposed to performing well more consistently).

Nobody should nat 1 when they're trained in acrobatics unless there are extraordinary circumstances (that .25% chance).

I disagree with this largely because I sincerely believe that skill checks should only be made in dramatic circumstances when failure is actually an important consideration and that, because those situations are not ideal (e.g. you're in combat and can't focus entirely on your jump because you're also having to pay attention to any errant spells/arrows/attacks that might be heading your way), even if you're the absolute best person at tumbling, there should still be a (not insignificant) chance you fail completely.

It's because of this reason that I like the skill-training-as-bonus-die mechanism: it improves average performance while preserving the chance for failure in a dramatic circumstance, even if you're totally stacked up on bonuses.

A) How far off average damage gets in higher tiers, and how to correct it

Step 1: Actually account for all bonuses that you realistically expect players to be getting (e.g. iron armbands of power, etc.) in the math.

Step 2: Done.

B) How to give PCs more tactical options in combat without punishing them for it, so things like trips, bullrushes, readied actions, and various stunts become as appealing as "At-will, end turn,"

Honestly, most of this can be fixed by giving players more options with their at-wills (e.g. at-will can do one of 3-4 things, chosen at the time of use) rather than forcing them to pick 2 at-wills at character creation (which basically boils down to "which at-wills do I think are going to be useful most often?").

Readied actions are generally going to be incredibly low value unless you do something like allowing for action interruption (e.g. ready an action to try and interrupt/prevent your opponent's attack, much like Spellsplinter Maneuver in OotS), at which point they become incredibly powerful because you're denying your opponent actions.

I still want us to actually come up with a mechanical description of what a stunt actually *is* because, as it stands, there are a number of ways that it can be interpreted, each of which has different problems requires a different type of solution.

C) Fixing monster design, because hoo boy, for being so clean it's a mess.

I always found monster designed to be incredibly clean with the exception of the guidelines for solo/elite monsters (they should be dealing roughly twice as much damage per turn as a standard monster, based upon how long they are expected to live compared to the equivalent number of standard monsters; elites should be dealing roughly 25% more; the written rules for solos/elites are incredibly vague beyond the "they should get more dangerous when bloodied") and non-damage effects (e.g. how far should a monster be able to push/pull/slide, how much less damage should an attack with a daze/stun/prone/immob/etc do). At best, there's a rough heuristic that most GMs learn to apply as they become more experienced with homebrewing monsters, but it would be nice to actually get into the math and break down rough mathematical guidelines for the status effects.

ThePurple

2016-02-29, 05:06 PM

I agree with this, but I feel this needs to be handled separately from Utility powers as they currently are. I like non-combat Utility powers and Skill powers generally, but unless you're in a specific game where their value exceeds the best combat-oriented ones they're always going to get skipped in favor of stuff like Shield and Invigorating Stride. (Edit: looking back, I see you already mentioned this issue. :smallredface: )

It's for this exact reason that I suggested separating Utility Powers into separate categories: Utility Powers (which is pretty much the same as they are now; e.g. the non-attack powers that you use during combat) and Skill Powers (which are the ones useful out of combat situations and could be specifically designed to provide more options in Skill Challenges).

I agree, and I think that if there's one thing about D&D that I don't want to throw out, it would be its elegance. Too many different ways for adjudicating tasks leads to system bloat, and if one of the goals for this is to reach out to tactical RPG/board game players, I feel we should try to keep the systems-within-systems approach to a minimum.

Honestly, the best approach would be to have the exact same system for skill checks and attack rolls (e.g. both are d20 + total bonuses or d20 + bonus die + total bonuses), preferably with them following identical math (so that the DC for a hard skill check is basically the same as the defense of a monster at that level; it does complicate things for easy and moderate DCs, since the scaling for them would be different, though, in my experience, players tend to gravitate towards using those skills that they've got good mods for and shy away from the ones they have low mods for).

There was a suggestion a while back that I really liked as far as ability scores and derived stats: having STR/DEX/WIS all contribute to physical attack rolls and CON/INT/CHA all contribute to magical attack rolls. That way, regardless of class you'd by necessity raise stats that contribute to all three NADs because you would need them for your attacks to hit.

I really don't like this mainly because I feel that what ability score your attacks used should be governed by your class (this is why many games, including my own, give out melee training of the player's choice for free, so that everyone has a non-laughable MBA at the very least) rather than arbitrary categorization. A bard, for example, should be using CHA for their attacks, even when swinging a sword because that's what the entire class is built around (this is speaking from a mechanical vantage point; from a narrative vantage point, a bard swinging a sword should be using either DEX or STR). It's not really a magical attack because they're dealing damage with the sword, as opposed to using some kind of magic on the target (which is why it targets AC rather than a NAD).

The problem with trying to get all 3 NADs to be decent isn't a problem with the players. It's a problem with the system itself not allowing players to get all 3 NADs to be decent. You only get bonuses to 2 stats and the system assumes that your ability modifier scales by getting the bonus to that stat every single time.

The other problem is that some classes end up doubling up on a single NAD (e.g. CHAladins and CON fighters), which screws them over even more. The solution I see to this is additional feats/options that allow players to change which NAD they govern (such as a series of feats that allow players to cause STR to apply to Ref, Con to apply to Will, DEX to apply to Fort, Int to apply to Will, Wis to apply to Fort, and Cha to apply to Ref instead of the NAD that they apply to naturally). As long as you remove the traditional feat tax (e.g. give everyone improved defenses and expertise for free and/or just provide a straight up tier bonus to defenses and attack rolls), players can take them early on without limiting their effectiveness. It would encourage players to use the stats as they're intended but allow players to use them separately without a significant cost.

Dacia Brabant

2016-02-29, 06:18 PM

It's for this exact reason that I suggested separating Utility Powers into separate categories: Utility Powers (which is pretty much the same as they are now; e.g. the non-attack powers that you use during combat) and Skill Powers (which are the ones useful out of combat situations and could be specifically designed to provide more options in Skill Challenges).

My apologies, you did mention that. How would you envision players gaining Skill powers under such a division? Keep them as feats, grant them as part of the leveling system, grant them upon reaching a certain training threshold, or some other method?

Honestly, the best approach would be to have the exact same system for skill checks and attack rolls (e.g. both are d20 + total bonuses or d20 + bonus die + total bonuses), preferably with them following identical math (so that the DC for a hard skill check is basically the same as the defense of a monster at that level; it does complicate things for easy and moderate DCs, since the scaling for them would be different, though, in my experience, players tend to gravitate towards using those skills that they've got good mods for and shy away from the ones they have low mods for).

I agree with this.

I really don't like this mainly because I feel that what ability score your attacks used should be governed by your class (this is why many games, including my own, give out melee training of the player's choice for free, so that everyone has a non-laughable MBA at the very least) rather than arbitrary categorization. A bard, for example, should be using CHA for their attacks, even when swinging a sword because that's what the entire class is built around (this is speaking from a mechanical vantage point; from a narrative vantage point, a bard swinging a sword should be using either DEX or STR). It's not really a magical attack because they're dealing damage with the sword, as opposed to using some kind of magic on the target (which is why it targets AC rather than a NAD).

The problem with trying to get all 3 NADs to be decent isn't a problem with the players. It's a problem with the system itself not allowing players to get all 3 NADs to be decent. You only get bonuses to 2 stats and the system assumes that your ability modifier scales by getting the bonus to that stat every single time.

The other problem is that some classes end up doubling up on a single NAD (e.g. CHAladins and CON fighters), which screws them over even more. The solution I see to this is additional feats/options that allow players to change which NAD they govern (such as a series of feats that allow players to cause STR to apply to Ref, Con to apply to Will, DEX to apply to Fort, Int to apply to Will, Wis to apply to Fort, and Cha to apply to Ref instead of the NAD that they apply to naturally). As long as you remove the traditional feat tax (e.g. give everyone improved defenses and expertise for free and/or just provide a straight up tier bonus to defenses and attack rolls), players can take them early on without limiting their effectiveness. It would encourage players to use the stats as they're intended but allow players to use them separately without a significant cost.

That's fair. I'm not opposed to having feats to replace one ability mod for another, that's been around since 3.5E; I'm just leary of feat taxes, or anything that could become a feat tax. I see feats more as things that either allow characters to do cool things, or that make the cool things they can do even cooler, and less as patches for attack and defense scaling.

ThePurple

2016-02-29, 06:46 PM

My apologies, you did mention that. How would you envision players gaining Skill powers under such a division? Keep them as feats, grant them as part of the leveling system, grant them upon reaching a certain training threshold, or some other method?

In my homebrew, I basically gave them out at certain levels as a completely separate category of powers such that players had at-wills/encounter/daily/skill.

I'm not sure what levels I would want them to be provided at, though. When running an epic campaign, my players mentioned that they suffered from option paralysis when considering their utility powers because they had so many (since utility powers are never replaced), so one thought would be to use the same power progression as normal except turn half of the utility powers into skill powers.

The problem with simply turning half of your utility powers into skill powers is that the whole reason to provide skill powers is to provide additional options during skill challenges beyond "roll this skill", and players don't get multiple utility powers until level 6. As such, I would probably give players a single skill power at level 1 in addition to turning half of your utility powers gained through levels (probably levels 6, 10, and 22; this gives players 4 utility powers and 4 skill powers).

For skill powers themselves, the list that I came up with was mostly generic (e.g. none were related to a specific skill) and provided a specific advantage (like re-rolling, rolling twice, getting an additional success when you succeed by 5 or more, etc.) to the use of a small selection of skills (which would be tied to that specific skill power; if we do the physical/social/mental categorization, I would probably say that the player should simply choose one category to be able to apply the skill power to). Basically, there was a single list of skill powers that everyone drew from and basically customized the skill power to apply to their chosen skills.

That's fair. I'm not opposed to having feats to replace one ability mod for another, that's been around since 3.5E; I'm just leary of feat taxes, or anything that could become a feat tax. I see feats more as things that either allow characters to do cool things, or that make the cool things they can do even cooler, and less as patches for attack and defense scaling.

One of the games I'm currently running just had the players reach level 8 and, because I provide the feat tax feats (improved defenses, expertise of their choosing, melee training) for free at level 1, the players all told me that they were having a hard time picking a feat, mainly because they already had most of the feats they wanted in the heroic tier at that time.

It's for this reason that I'm reasonably confident that feats that change which NAD an attribute is applied to wouldn't really be feat taxes. First off, not everyone has to take them. Second, people would only have to take a single one if they're doubled up on a NAD (since a fundamental assumption of the game is that you have 3 good stats). Also players wouldn't be able to stack multiple NADs onto a single stat because the proposed feats change which defense that attribute applies to rather than simply adding it as an option (taking the feat that allows you to use STR for Ref makes it so that you can use only CON for Fort and either STR, DEX, or INT for Ref).

One possible problem is that, as I have it written now, players could feasibly take multiple feats (like both the CON and STR one) and end up without a stat for Fort. The simple solution to this is to restrict players to only being able to take a single NAD attribute replacement feat (probably by making it a single feat that players can't take more than once; it could even be worded such that you can change any attribute to be applied to a different defense as opposed to having specific choices).

Nifft

2016-02-29, 06:50 PM

Lemme try to summarize what we've been discussing so far

1) Skill Training:
Untrained - roll 1d20 for skills
Trained - roll 2d12 for skills Not really.

2) Accuracy, defenses and bonuses

Rolls (at combat) are 1d20 + proficiency +stat + other bonuses
Proficiency bonus:
Level 1-5 = +2;
I'm leaning towards something much simpler:
Level 1-10: +2
Level 11-20: +4
Level 21-30: +6

Tier Bonus.

Assorted/Other bonuses
weapon (are we still giving swords + to hit over axes?) +- 1
Feats/Powers up to +2
Item bonuses (enchantment?) up to +6 (?) (I'm in for removing this one)
The swords one may be okay, but not the others. Mostly no.

Defenses per level (Armor/Ref/Wil/Fort)
(...)
This "maxed warrior" can still gain up to +3 bonuses from powers/feats/weapon, so he'll hit with a 8+ even against "good defenses". A non-maxed warrior will be lagging about 5 points behind the maxed warrior, so he'll hit a "good defense" on 16+. What do you guys think? I think the 5-point spread needs to go away, so a naive warrior is still pretty good at hitting -- he just might not have as good options for what happens when he does hit.

I'd really like if basic competence was assumed, rather than an achievement.

Then, finding creative synergies for powers can be the reward for a good build, while a poor build just does its thing in a dull, competent way.

UrielAwakened

2016-02-29, 06:59 PM

It just blows my mind that you think a tier bonus is simpler than "Half your level to everything." It's not simpler. It's way messier, it just keeps things closer in spread. Which isn't something you want out of 4e.

Level is an abstract concept that doesn't translate to anything in-game besides "power." It shows what level of threat you can reasonable expect to handle in an adventure. Heroic threats affect towns, paragon threats can affect countries, and epic threats affect the world and beyond.

To do anything to disrupt the spread is to limit how much power is available within the system.

If you really wanted to, you could ditch levels altogether and just play in a tier, which decides what your threats are. Levels aren't a necessity. But without them, there's no sense of progression, and so there's very little incentive to keep playing.

We have levels because they feel good. And the one thing 4e did to really enforce that feeling is the half-level mechanic. Gone are the days of 3.5 where you can't beat a golem because it has spell resistance and you don't deal the right damage type, or you can't beat a Tarrasque because you need a wish spell.

No, you can't beat the Golem because you're level 3 and it's level 11. It's just way more badass than you, deal with it.

ThePurple

2016-02-29, 07:05 PM

On the topic of simplifying things rather than complicating them...

It kind of bothers me that damage is the one thing that requires other sorts of dice besides a d20. I honestly wouldn't be opposed to getting rid of the damage roll entirely and just letting the attack roll determine damage.

Say, each attack has three damage values; one for a glancing hit, one for a normal hit, and one for a crit. If your attack roll only beats the enemy's defense by a small margin,its a glancing blow. If you hit by a large margin, its a crit. Some attacks can also have different effects tied to glancing versus full impacts.

While I agree with the idea of simplifying things rather than complicating them (probably the best example of how simple a system can be is the "MM3 on a business card" guidelines for monster design; I sincerely hope that we stick with something like that for monster design rather than something super complicated), I dislike the idea of putting the entirety of an attack's effectiveness on a single d20 roll, mainly because it basically breaks down into "do everything to increase your attack bonus" and turns your defenses into both damage reduction and damage avoidance, which is pretty friggin' powerful.

It also ends up complicating things because, rather than just doing a second roll to determine your damage, you have to have 3 separate effects lines for every power. Crits couldn't be handled as they are currently because the entire point of this is to no longer roll non-d20 dice to determine damage so you can't maximize said damage or gain bonus dice from your weapon.

Also, you wouldn't really end up with much variance in damage dealt because you're splitting damage into 3 discrete categories based upon a d20 roll. Imagine if we instituted your single roll system where missing by 5 or less results in a glancing blow and a hit in excess of 5 results of in a crit. You end up with only 5 points of variance for each category with which to determine how much damage you dealt, which is barely more than an at-will attack with a dagger provides. You could just as easily replace all die rolls with the average roll of that die (so a dagger deals 2 damage per damage die on a hit, a longsword deals 4, and a battleaxe deals 5), and it accomplishes the exact same thing without having to create 2 additional entries for each power.

Nifft

2016-02-29, 07:09 PM

It just blows my mind that you think a tier bonus is simpler than "Half your level to everything." It's not simpler. It's way messier, it just keeps things closer in spread. Which isn't something you want out of 4e. 0-15 is a lot messier than 2-6.

3.5e is a lot messier than 5e, in part because 3.5e adheres to your "linear growth" idea.

It's not a good idea.

Level is an abstract concept that doesn't translate to anything in-game besides "power." It shows what level of threat you can reasonable expect to handle in an adventure. Heroic threats affect towns, paragon threats can affect countries, and epic threats affect the world and beyond. Here's how you can do that without needing pointless bonus inflation. Watch carefully:
- Heroic threats WALK.
- Paragon threats FLY.
- Epic threats TELEPORT.

That wasn't very difficult.

To do anything to disrupt the spread is to limit how much power is available within the system. If numeric inflation is supposed to mean "how much power is available", then it's doing a terrible job.

The numbers grow on both sides, in lockstep, so there's literally no difference in what you need to roll to hit.

Numeric inflation does nothing except make the system messier, since everyone needs to compensate in lockstep.

Remember the "math fix" feats? I do. They sucked. They were the result of your way of thinking.

If you really wanted to, you could ditch levels altogether and just play in a tier, which decides what your threats are. Levels aren't a necessity. But without them, there's no sense of progression, and so there's very little incentive to keep playing. Levels give access to:
- Feats
- Powers
- Class features
- Hit points
- Healing surges
- Ability score increases

There's a goddamn ton of progression for someone to feel, a goddamn ton of interesting choices to make.

Mindlessly updating every number on your sheet, while the DM mindlessly updates every number on the monsters to compensate, is really not my idea of progression.

ThePurple

2016-02-29, 07:17 PM

It just blows my mind that you think a tier bonus is simpler than "Half your level to everything." It's not simpler. It's way messier, it just keeps things closer in spread. Which isn't something you want out of 4e.

It also makes the math less elegant. One of the best things about 4e monster design was that it was basically "here are the base values for each aspect of a monster; just add level (or value x level in the case of hp)". GMs were encouraged to tweak those numbers up or down by a point or two to create differences in the defenses, but that's just using the old "rule of thumb" as it applies to defenses rather than DCs.

By trying to decrease the growth that players have, you have to similarly decrease the growth for monsters, and, unless you do something super nice like straight up halving all of the necessary progressions, you end up with some incredibly inelegant math in the process (like having to multiply level by 2/3rds or having to do something like level / 4 + 1 per tier, which is much more cognitively demanding than simply adding two integers).

Player math *should* be a more complex equation than monster math, mainly because players want a much higher level of complexity in their characters than GMs want in their monsters. The secret in in making sure that the sum of the more complex player equation ends up with the same value as the much more simple and elegant equation that GMs use, and, honestly, I don't see it being possible without using the spread that 4e used.

What really needs to happen is that *all* elements that affect player performance in combat need to actually be considered in the balance equations so that player progression doesn't just straight up outstrip monster progression because it found a way to get more variables added to it.

UrielAwakened

2016-02-29, 07:22 PM

There is nothing elegant about a tier bonus system.

All you do is minimize the difference in monsters and encourage things like throwing a Pit Fiend at level 1 players.

Half level is elegant. It's easier to remember. It's consistent.

And the math works fine. Players have plenty of room to work the math in their favor with things like stats, enchantments, and feat support. Besides there's a massive amount of variance in a d20 roll, you don't need to worry as much about numbers as you would in a bell-curve system.

Gotta be honest I would want nothing to do with any impersonation of 4e that tried to ditch half level. You aren't even playing the same game anymore, you're playing 5e with power cards.

Here's how you can do that without needing pointless bonus inflation. Watch carefully:
- Heroic threats WALK.
- Paragon threats FLY.
- Epic threats TELEPORT.

That wasn't very difficult.

This seriously makes me question if you've played more than ten sessions of 4e.

It also makes the math less elegant. One of the best things about 4e monster design was that it was basically "here are the base values for each aspect of a monster; just add level (or value x level in the case of hp)". GMs were encouraged to tweak those numbers up or down by a point or two to create differences in the defenses, but that's just using the old "rule of thumb" as it applies to defenses rather than DCs.

By trying to decrease the growth that players have, you have to similarly decrease the growth for monsters, and, unless you do something super nice like straight up halving all of the necessary progressions, you end up with some incredibly inelegant math in the process (like having to multiply level by 2/3rds or having to do something like level / 4 + 1 per tier, which is much more cognitively demanding than simply adding two integers).

Player math *should* be a more complex equation than monster math, mainly because players want a much higher level of complexity in their characters than GMs want in their monsters. The secret in in making sure that the sum of the more complex player equation ends up with the same value as the much more simple and elegant equation that GMs use, and, honestly, I don't see it being possible without using the spread that 4e used.

What really needs to happen is that *all* elements that affect player performance in combat need to actually be considered in the balance equations so that player progression doesn't just straight up outstrip monster progression because it found a way to get more variables added to it.

Yeah this guy gets it. You need to get more advantages out of the tactics than what's on the character sheet. Enchantments, ability scores, etc... should only be a part of meeting an on-level encounter.

ThePurple

2016-02-29, 07:32 PM

If numeric inflation is supposed to mean "how much power is available", then it's doing a terrible job.

The numbers grow on both sides, in lockstep, so there's literally no difference in what you need to roll to hit.

That's because the definition of power being used is not "how much better am I at fighting the stuff I was already fighting except now it's higher level too"; it's "look at the new, different threats I'm able to deal with".

Your argument is based entirely on the premise that the world levels up with you. It doesn't. You don't end up fighting the same orcs that start off at level 1 and grow in level all the way up to 30 when you finish off your career (this exact design is one of the reasons why I couldn't *stand* Elder Scroll Oblivion; level was basically irrelevant). Orcs are (roughly) level 5. When you're level 1, they're friggin' dangerous because they're 4 levels higher than you. When you're level 5, they're on par. When you're level 10 or higher, they're a joke.

The same is true for Skill Challenges. When 4e first came out, one of the major criticisms I heard from a friend of mine was that Skill Challenges made absolutely no sense. In his mind, he envisioned a Skill Challenge where players had to pass through a dangerous forest at level 1. This Skill Challenge was level 1, for obvious reasons. He then believed that, when the players passed through this same forest at level 5, the forest would have leveled up (for completely arbitrary reasons). This is not how 4e works. The forest, unless there is a narrative reason for the forest suddenly becoming more dangerous (like an invasion of spiders or the elven natives militarizing because of the incursions of adventurers), should *still* be a level 1 Skill Challenge.

The world does not level up with the PCs. As the PCs level up, they're experiencing the higher level elements within the world *which is exactly what power increases are supposed to do for players*.

Remember the "math fix" feats? I do. They sucked. They were the result of your way of thinking.

Yes, they sucked, but they sucked because players had to sacrifice a feat in order to get the proper math. They didn't suck because they increased your numbers. They sucked because you had to lose something in order to fix what should have been accounted for in the first place.

Mindlessly updating every number on your sheet, while the DM mindlessly updates every number on the monsters to compensate, is really not my idea of progression.

In every single game I have ever run, every single one of my players has been quite happy when hitting an even numbered level specifically because they could outright see their numbers go up. There was a very noticeable and (from a player perspective) tangible element in the game where they could see their characters improve. Feats are nice and so are powers and everything else you mentioned, but half-levels are nice because players can explicitly see their characters getting better.

And, once again, if your GM is updating his monsters because the party leveled up, the GM is doing it wrong. The GM should be busting out new monsters when your party levels up, not using the same ones with higher values.

UrielAwakened

2016-02-29, 07:37 PM

In his defense, even the game makers did a piss poor job conveying this fact. There shouldn't level things like level 12 Orc Mercenaries.

Getting ahead of ourselves but any monster manual entry should have a brief blurb that says "Goblins are found at levels 1-5," etc... so you know as a DM not to throw level 13 goblins at your players unless they're named individuals that clearly have a story role.

ThePurple

2016-02-29, 07:57 PM

Yeah this guy gets it. You need to get more advantages out of the tactics than what's on the character sheet. Enchantments, ability scores, etc... should only be a part of meeting an on-level encounter.

I'm not quite sure we're on the same page, even though you're agreeing with me.

What I'm really trying to say is that, in designing a game, we need to actually go out that figure out all of the allowable elements that contribute to a character's effectiveness we're going to include (and, when we develop more content to add to it, actually stick to it). This lets us predict player performance, which allows us to create a concrete and reliable guideline for GMs in designing challenges for these players.

While this exact construct was basically the *biggest single strength* of 4e as a system, it was also flawed, mainly because the math ignored a number of significant factors that allowed players to rapidly outstrip monsters in how they performed. Multi-attacks, non-standard action attacks, unintended damage bonuses (like dragonshards, iron armbands of power, gauntlets of blood, etc.), paragon paths, and epic destinies were all basically ignored or unknown when 4e was coming up with the balance math. When players began to actually use those elements of the game because, hey, you're encouraged to choose effective powers, good gear, and optimal PPs and EDs, players outstripped the monsters.

It's for this reason that heroic tier is considered to be extremely well balanced (albeit boring, because you have **** for options), paragon tier is often considered to be the most fun (because you have options in building your character and it's generally pretty well balanced), and epic tier is basically a cluster**** (because you have an almost crippling number of options and conditional modifiers and it's horribly unbalanced). Most of that can be explained by the playtesting occurring almost entirely in the heroic tier, with a significant minority in the paragon tier, and almost none occurring in the epic tier (which means that, during development, the developers never got the feedback needed to know that there was a problem).

In short, we need to actually create guidelines and limitations for what a paragon path and epic destiny are supposed to add to a character and include the possible contributions that players are going to be able to get from gear (which also means limiting what gear is actually capable of providing to players so that poorly designed gear doesn't screw up the math) as well as other sources.

The only stuff affecting d20 rolls that should actually scale with level in *any manner* (either by tier, half-level, every 5 levels, etc.; it should even include the fact that players get more feats as they level up, which increases their effectiveness) should be accounted for in the numbers that we use for the monster guidelines.

A lot of this is going to basically boiling down to creating guidelines for gear itself. One of the things that I really want to see happen is to go from the "big 3" gear slots (weapon, neck, armor) to a system where you have a "big 4" (weapon, neck, armor, and arm; arm gear would basically be designed such that *every* arm slot acts as an iron armbands of power to its respective attack type that scales in the exact same manner as the other big 3, starting with +1 at levels 1-5 and increasing by 1 every 5 levels, in addition to benefits like those on non-standard magic gear for the big 3 slots) slots devoted to combat and every other slot largely devoted to augmenting skills (a similar design wherein the piece of gear augments one or more given skills by 1, increasing by 1 every 5 levels, and can also have additional benefits that increase the base item level).

One of the reasons why I like this is that it makes it so that low level gear stops providing the same level of utility at high levels as it does at lower levels (what I like to called the "Boots of the Fencing Master" problem), gives players an outlet for augmenting their chosen skills whether they be their best skills or their worst, and allows us to use a very similar scaling system to attack rolls and defenses for skill checks (as previous stated, I would love it immensely if the DCs for skill checks basically matched NADs).

Rakaydos

2016-02-29, 08:03 PM

Expanding the Hybrid rules:

in 3.5, multiclassing was actually a point buy system- do you want to put all your levelup points into Druid, do you want to focus on Warblade with a point or two of rogue?

What if that was explicit and far more grandular?

Each level, you get X build points for class abilities, and a new generic level appropriate power. (encounter at 3, daily at 5, encounter at 7, ect)
Class abilities ean toward open ended, specializing effects, such as "all your healing powers heal an additional (stat)" that get more powerful as you have more abiilities.

So an out of class power would simpy not benifit from the class abilities that wernt meant to work with it, but there's nothing stoping you from, say, picking up the Fighter counterattack as a Glaive Wizard.

ThePurple

2016-02-29, 08:15 PM

In his defense, even the game makers did a piss poor job conveying this fact

Well, the manner in which the devs conveyed that was by having the orcs in published materials only being level 5-9. It only really gets out of control when GMs start homebrewing monsters and creating monsters of a given type that are extremely out of what the intended range is supposed to be.

There shouldn't level things like level 12 Orc Mercenaries.

While I agree with you in general, I disagree in a specific case: when using minions. I could totally see an army of orcs being an obstacle to a group of low paragon heroes. The average orc in that army should most *definitely* not be a direct challenge to any of those heroes, but, en masse, they would be a problem, which is exactly what the minion role is supposed to exemplify: a monster that is trivial to defeat but presents a problem for characters when fought in a large group.

Minions also address what some people have called the "militia problem" (e.g. a large enough group of untrained villagers should be able to actually pose a threat to a problem, like a dragon, even though individually, they're worthless).

When homebrewing, one of my general heuristics has been that you can add 10 levels and decrease the category of a monster by 1 level. In other words, a level 2 orc is perfectly fine as a level 12 minion. It also means that a hatchling white dragon (level 1 elite) makes a serviceable level 11 standard. The math doesn't really work out since it's kind of a narrative rule, but it's simple enough to just create new values when using the "MM3 on a business card".

This is actually how I created a fight in one game where the players were having to defeat a dragon matron who fought alongside all of her hatchlings (the hatchlings were minions and she was a solo).

That heuristic also works in reverse, allowing for the use of a mind flayer (upper level paragon elite) as a solo in an upper level heroic game (such as a scenario where a mind flayer has taken over a quaint village).

I've always felt that a monster's category is more of a representation of how threatening the monster is to a player of that level. If a monster of a given level is a sensible threat (in a narrative sense, not a mechanical one) to a single player of a given level, it's a standard. If it makes more narrative sense for the monster to be a threat to a couple of players working together, it's elite. If it would take the entire party working together to take it out, it's a solo. If a single player should be able to take out a large number of them without significant effort, it's a minion. If a massive horde of whatever monster should pose no threat to even a single player (like a whole town of villagers facing off against an epic level wizard), it's not even worth considering as a monster.

From that categorization (minion, standard, elite, solo), you then determine the monster's level based upon where the PCs are within a given tier.

Dacia Brabant

2016-02-29, 08:28 PM

In my homebrew, I basically gave them out at certain levels as a completely separate category of powers such that players had at-wills/encounter/daily/skill.

I'm not sure what levels I would want them to be provided at, though. When running an epic campaign, my players mentioned that they suffered from option paralysis when considering their utility powers because they had so many (since utility powers are never replaced), so one thought would be to use the same power progression as normal except turn half of the utility powers into skill powers.

The problem with simply turning half of your utility powers into skill powers is that the whole reason to provide skill powers is to provide additional options during skill challenges beyond "roll this skill", and players don't get multiple utility powers until level 6. As such, I would probably give players a single skill power at level 1 in addition to turning half of your utility powers gained through levels (probably levels 6, 10, and 22; this gives players 4 utility powers and 4 skill powers).

For skill powers themselves, the list that I came up with was mostly generic (e.g. none were related to a specific skill) and provided a specific advantage (like re-rolling, rolling twice, getting an additional success when you succeed by 5 or more, etc.) to the use of a small selection of skills (which would be tied to that specific skill power; if we do the physical/social/mental categorization, I would probably say that the player should simply choose one category to be able to apply the skill power to). Basically, there was a single list of skill powers that everyone drew from and basically customized the skill power to apply to their chosen skills.

I've never actually played past level 16, so while I haven't had that experience of option paralysis with this system before--and that was even with Themes--I'm not in a position to deny it either. If that's the path we take, I would just suggest that we limit them to 1/tier; having it be at levels 1, 6 and 10 seems too heavily weighted toward Heroic and that could have negative balance issues by only having a combat utility at level 2.

Themes will also have to be taken into account since they all have power swaps, and I have no idea how (if at all) they were balanced. Like PPs and EDs, they simply might not be.

One of the games I'm currently running just had the players reach level 8 and, because I provide the feat tax feats (improved defenses, expertise of their choosing, melee training) for free at level 1, the players all told me that they were having a hard time picking a feat, mainly because they already had most of the feats they wanted in the heroic tier at that time.

It's for this reason that I'm reasonably confident that feats that change which NAD an attribute is applied to wouldn't really be feat taxes. First off, not everyone has to take them. Second, people would only have to take a single one if they're doubled up on a NAD (since a fundamental assumption of the game is that you have 3 good stats). Also players wouldn't be able to stack multiple NADs onto a single stat because the proposed feats change which defense that attribute applies to rather than simply adding it as an option (taking the feat that allows you to use STR for Ref makes it so that you can use only CON for Fort and either STR, DEX, or INT for Ref).

One possible problem is that, as I have it written now, players could feasibly take multiple feats (like both the CON and STR one) and end up without a stat for Fort. The simple solution to this is to restrict players to only being able to take a single NAD attribute replacement feat (probably by making it a single feat that players can't take more than once; it could even be worded such that you can change any attribute to be applied to a different defense as opposed to having specific choices).

That's so interesting to me because it's the complete opposite of my experience: even with a free expertise, a free defense feat and possibly a free melee training feat, I'm still feeling feat-starved, and that feeling only gets worse by the time I hit Paragon. To use my currently level 1 Human Executioner|Warlock (1st level feats: Cursed Shadow and Assassin's Cloak), I want to pick up Cunning Stalker, Sacrifice to Caiphon and at least one of the multiclass Rogue feats (and probably two--Sneak Attack and Cunning Sneak each 1/encounter is pretty sweet) and of course Hybrid Talent--and that's before looking at stuff that strictly adds damage like Surprising Charge.

This is a pretty normal character for me; some of them, like my Swordmage|Cleric, are a bit ridiculous. I recognize not every player is going to be like this, but there's always going to be some who will want more options, not less, and if the baseline of Core is "optimized 4E" then the rest of what we do here will have to keep pace.

I do agree though that not everyone would have to take the NAD-switch feats, nor will everyone need to. I was particularly proud of my Executioner|Warlock for having all his defenses, including AC, be equally good. It would probably only become a tax for SAD characters like Chaladins, Swordmages, certain types of Rogues and Wizards who start with a pre-racial 18; if we could find a good way to discourage starting with a 20 in your primary stat--or, say, prohibiting it entirely by requiring a 16/16/13 or a 16/14/14 array--that would be one way to work around it.

ThePurple

2016-02-29, 08:45 PM

Jeebus, I'm talking a lot on this conversation. Let's hear it for being bored and on the interwebs!

Expanding the Hybrid rules:

While I can agree that multiclassing and hybridization in 4e weren't a particularly elegant solution to the problem and that it should definitely be addressed

in 3.5, multiclassing was actually a point buy system- do you want to put all your levelup points into Druid, do you want to focus on Warblade with a point or two of rogue?

The problem with multiclassing in 3.X was that it was basically pointless to do it if you were a caster (since your spellcasting didn't advance) and the only reason most people did it was in order to qualify for a specific prestige class (which wasn't really the intent of the developers of 3.X; if you read the stuff in the DMG predicating the prestige classes, the original intent was for prestige classes to be rare, unique, and largely specific to the campaign setting). It was for this reason that the designers of 4e created Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies (which are the equivalent of prestige classes) and made them basically default elements of characters when they reached a certain level. It also had problems insofar as it screwed with your math because BAB and saves scaled with the level of the class, not the total level of the character.

4e solved the other problems by making it so that your character level governed a vast majority of your character's effectiveness rather than tying it to class level. This, however, had its own problems that other people have discussed at length.

Honestly, I feel that the combination of multiclassing (e.g. spend a feat and get a skill training and some nice thematic element of the class you're MCing into) and hybridization (e.g. marry these two classes together by getting specific elements of the two classes) worked out pretty well.

The real problems are that multiclassing in 4e is kinda pointless/crappy beyond the initial feat you take (so you're really just dipping your toe in), paragon multiclassing is a trap unless you're going for a *very* specific build (because it costs a bunch of feats and doesn't provide nearly the same benefits as a PP), and hybridization has an epic number of terrible combinations (the one that immediately comes to mind is trying to hybridize an arcane warrior via fighter and wizard) because classes are built around using very specific stats.

Personally, I really don't like hybridization (but I can understand why some people do), mainly because I feel that it allows people to create absolutely insane characters that don't really make sense within (what I see as) the archetypes of heroic fantasy (like the famous swordmage/warlock hybrid). I've always felt that creating new classes is a better solution to the problem of "there isn't a class that really does what I envision my character doing" (assuming you're willing to refluff stuff rather than being beholden to what the concept as written is).

I would probably leave "fixing" and/or redesigning the hybrid system to someone who's actually a fan of it (coughcough Tegu coughcough).

I do like how multiclassing worked, though it felt a bit *too* good (which is why pretty much everyone took it since it was kind of like skill training + benefit + access to exclusive stuff). Paragon multiclassing could be fixed by reducing the feat tax (to a single feat) and providing actual bonuses to equate to what PPs generally get (e.g. bonus to APs, and level 16 class feature).

What if that was explicit and far more grandular?

The problem with a granular design is that it gets really complicated, which I think most of us would wish to avoid. 4e was great because it was very elegant in its design (and was its greatest strength). The stuff in 4e that turned out bad were the systems that were complicated (or became complicated later one).

UrielAwakened

2016-02-29, 08:53 PM

Here's some stuff more from a DM perspective rather than the player perspective.

The three things I said I wanted to address.

A) How far off average damage gets in higher tiers, and how to correct it.
B) How to give PCs more tactical options in combat without punishing them for it, so things like trips, bullrushes, readied actions, and various stunts become as appealing as "At-will, end turn."
C) Fixing monster design, because hoo boy, for being so clean it's a mess.

First things first, damage. I don’t want to reiterate this blog word-for-word, but I read this entry about a year ago before starting my second 4e campaign and it changed my world.

http://dmg42.blogspot.ca/2012/02/boot-on-face-of-level-1-damage-forever.html

The cliff notes are this: Even MM3 damage numbers are way too low. By upping damage numbers you can keep the game feeling threatening from levels 1-30. Previously, when my PCs got to epic tier, even though I was using MM3 math on everything they faced I still had to regularly throw threats that were 4 or 5 levels higher than them to do any real damage. This was compounded by the monster’s higher defenses, making games drag on.

So going forward, I think “more damage” is a good philosophy to embrace. Lower damage makes fights drag on because they rarely seem like a major threat to players, and in an ideal system any encounter of level -2 or lower would be handled like a skill challenge instead. No reason to even drop encounter powers in cases like that.

A big problem I find in 4e is even though there’s a wealth of options, most combats devolve into at-will slug fests by round 5. You have cover, shifting, bull-rushes, grapples, feints, tripping, aiding, flanking, on and on and on…and so much of it ends up just being at-will spam. It’s heartbreaking. I have a few ideas to remedy that.

1) You have to make non-attack options more valuable. Bull rushing has to do more than just push one square. You should be able to ready a bull rush if an enemy comes close to your fallen ally WITHOUT being punished if they don’t. Likewise, a trip should be a legitimate maneuver that doesn’t punish you because “the best status effect is always dead.” Any revamped 4e combat system should make these options more enticing, and likewise provide other related options for non-martial classes. Maybe player math lags just a bit behind and suddenly aiding and set-up attacks are greatly improved because they tip the math in your favor? No idea, but some incentive is needed. There should also be handy cards that have a list of viable “moves” that players can easily refer to, in order to remember quickly what their non-attack options are in combat.

2) Immediate Reaction/Interrupt attacks slow the game to a crawl. If readied actions aren’t good enough, IRs and IIs are too good. Not only do they give you more attacks per round, they also slow the game down by holding up turns and requiring additional rolls. Any revamped system should force a player using out-of-turn attacks to forfeit their next attack instead. Likewise, readied actions need to be made better so as to not punish their use. Something like, if you ready an attack action and then don’t get to use it, you can make your attack at the end of the round normally as long as there’s a valid target. Something. Anything.

3) Maybe consider rechargeable powers. I’m iffy on this, but a recharge system similar to what monsters use could make encounter powers more viable despite having varying levels of strength, and it would cut a lot of the battles that devolve into at-will spam.

4) A mechanic that dictates battles end when the danger is gone. Most battles are decided by the half-way point anyway, so a good mechanic would be something that determines that once you get to a certain point, things surrender or flee as the case may be. Very few creatures should fight to the death, really only bosses or other major campaign foes that have nothing left to lose. I believe this mechanic has been replicated in some system here or there but I can’t for the life of me recall which one.

My greater point I made earlier is that even if everything revolving around monster defenses and attack rolls are elegant, monster power design is a complete catastrophe with little rhyme or reason behind it. That’s the gist of what I want to address with point C. Though monster math is elegant, monster design is garbage.

Monster powers seem to have vague ranges of damage, low, medium, high, and limited. High damage is reserved for things like artillery monsters, brutes, and lurkers, and limited seems to be recharge or encounter powers. Powers that hit multiple targets are usually one lower than normal. Beyond that? No rules. None.

There should be a couple rules.

Let’s talk about some rules of monster design now.

I talked briefly about how to scale monsters. And it matches the current topic, about why you shouldn’t be fighting level 25 orcs or level 3 pit fiends: Levels are power. Levels are scale. Levels show you how far you’ve come in the world.

With that in mind, you CAN reuse old monsters, by changing their role with their level. A level 4 Orc is a great threat for a level 3 party, but by level 8 that Orc is barely a speedbump. You can represent that cleanly by turning that once-threatning Orc into a minion. By letting your players slaughter a crowd of Orcs with little effort compared to five levels ago, they get a glimpse of how much stronger they’ve gotten. The rules are easy.

Each stage you go down adds five levels, each stage you go up subtracts five levels.

Solo
Elite
Standard
Minion

Which means that, yes, you could fight a level 11 standard monster as a level 1 solo. Let’s look at dragons to see how that would affect them. Dragons are pretty much all solos, so this is a good indication of what I mean. At level 3, a young white dragon is a solo. A credible threat. Then 5 levels later you’re fighting an adult white dragon, a level 9 solo. At this point, those young dragons are level 8 elites. You could fight the kids plus the mother by level 10 as a difficult, but winnable fighter. WITHOUT having to slog through a bunch of HP and a lot of auto-hits and misses.

Going further, by level 15 that young white dragon is a level 13 standard monster, the adult white dragon is a level 14 elite, and the elder white dragon is a level 17 solo. Finally, you hit level 20. You’re almost done with paragon tier. That young white dragon? A minion. You can slay it without effort. That adult white dragon? You can take it one-on-one. That elder white dragon? Might take two of you, but you can do it fairly easily. Only the ancient white dragon is a true, party-challenging threat at that point.

Incidentally, you can even add a fun fifth step below minion: Difficult terrain. Maybe by level 25 a room full of young white dragons do nothing more than slow you down.

However, we do have one problem with just straight leveling up monsters and cutting their role down: Action economy. Each standard monster should have the impact of one monster, while a solo needs to act more like 4 or 5. So what do we do?

I sort of addressed this already, but you would have two parts to it: You’d set up templates for each level of threat, and then give players a list of power generation tables to choose from. They could of course design their own, this would just be a tool to make it easier and to show that their monsters are actually designed according to some power system, like players are.

I’m not going to go all-out here but to convey my vision:

- You could have three tables, for heroic, paragon, and epic tier powers.

-You would have different tables for each monster “type,” so Lurker, Brute, Soldier, Artillery, Skirmisher, Controller.

-Powers would let you spend points in order to keep them “balanced.” For instance, let’s say you have 5 points to spend on a recharge power. You spend two points to make it “Normal” damage. You spend 2 more points to make it “Daze (save ends).” You want to spend two more points to make it Area Burst 1 in 10…but you don’t have enough! You could either choose “low” damage to get points back, or downgrade dazed (save ends) to dazed (end of your next turn). All of these numbers haven’t been balanced, of course, but you get the idea. You could also use things like making attacks minor actions, or adding recharge, to further give you flexibility in design and power level.

- Depending on threat level (Minion, Standard, etc..) you would have a different template to fill, which I’ll demonstrate below:

Minion:
-Basic attack
-One trait (aura, passive, etc..)

Standard:
-Basic attack
-One power
-One trait

Elite:
-Basic attack
-Two powers (one at-will, one recharge)
-One trait

Solo:
-Basic Attack
-Five powers (one at-will, one recharge, one encounter, one interrupt/free, one wildcard baby)
-Two traits

As you went up the scale, you’d add or remove powers accordingly. Solos in particular would be encouraged to choose two or three of their powers from roles beyond their own. Solos need to be able to fill each major role to some extent, they can’t just be a pure lurker, or a pure skirmisher. Such a system would allow for flexibility, but consistency, in monster design.

ThePurple

2016-02-29, 08:54 PM

I do agree though that not everyone would have to take the NAD-switch feats, nor will everyone need to. I was particularly proud of my Executioner|Warlock for having all his defenses, including AC, be equally good. It would probably only become a tax for SAD characters like Chaladins, Swordmages,

For those classes/builds that are specifically *designed* around explicitly stacking up on a single NAD, I would probably award one of the feats for free or a class feature that specifically provides for the secondary stat to add to a non-traditional NAD (similar to how Warden can apply Con or Wis to AC).

certain types of Rogues and Wizards who start with a pre-racial 18; if we could find a good way to discourage starting with a 20 in your primary stat--or, say, prohibiting it entirely by requiring a 16/16/13 or a 16/14/14 array--that would be one way to work around it.

I really really dislike builds that focus on a single attribute to the exclusion of all others. My players have generally gravitated towards a 16/16/14/11/10/8 pre-racial stat allotment because I use lots of Skill Challenges, which encourages players to have bonuses in a lot more skills.

Shimeran

2016-02-29, 08:56 PM

Whew, this thread exploded today. Let's see what we've got.

I guess my issue with the power scale in dnd is the multiple tiers of walking apocalypse.

Yeah, I get that readily enough. The serial escalation bit really doesn't look like it adds much. That's why I've been proposing cutting back defense scaling to either 1/2 level of 1/3 level. As is it seems to grow fast enough to bring in extra difficulties without much payoff.

At low level, everyone can contribute to every task, but maybe once you get into the high paragon and epic tier you just need to acknowledge that only a master X can handle certain tasks?

Maybe. I see the in fiction justification, but sitting out a challenge isn't much fun. That would be far smoother if the expert had tricks for leading the way or otherwise bringing allies into the challenge with them.

1) Skill Training:
Untrained - roll 1d20 for skills
Trained - roll 2d12 for skills

2) Accuracy, defenses and bonuses

Rolls (at combat) are 1d20 + proficiency +stat + other bonuses

Those are actually somewhat competing ideas competing ideas in that I wouldn't use both the dice change at start the proficiency bonus at +2. That makes a kind of inelegant seeming double dip for being trained.

Stat maxes
Level 1 = 20/+5
Level 11 = 22/+6
Level 21 = 24/+7
Level 30 = 26/+8

Honestly, still not really sold on these. I suppose I can see the "epic character should have epic attributes" angle, but I'm still not fond of the resulting spread. I can certainly think of character who should have say extraordinary strength, but in their cases I'd honestly be more tempted to just give them a "feats of strength" skill.

weapon (are we still giving swords + to hit over axes?) +- 1

The funny thing there is that a lot of armors had designs specifically to turn blades, making them less likely to score a solid hit. As such, while I see what they were going for, I wouldn't loose any sleep over loosing that. Granted, I'm a proponent of using Gamma World's more freeform approach to weapons.

Feats/Powers up to +2

I'm really not keen on feats that just act as number boosters. I'd be alright with small situational bonuses, though it's all too easy for that to players to find ways to manufacture those situations.

It does seem odd you'd group power bonuses in the same category. A well balanced power bonus should ideally be just shifting around the user's own output. For example, giving the power bonus to an ally instead of say dealing more damage yourself.

Item bonuses (enchantment?) up to +6 (?) (I'm in for removing this one)

Seconded on removing that one. I get the idea, but the way it makes supposedly epic heroes increasingly ineffective without their gear is not appealing.

This is wrong. At the moment monsters scale at a rate that's actually even slower than PCs in terms of to-hit once you factor in the +1 bonus to hit they get from expertise. (PCs get +15 from levels, +6 from enchantments, +8-10 from ability scores. Using 9 that's +30 right there, accounting for everything monsters get from leveling.

Which is why we'd be reworking the PC hit progression too. The reduced level scaling isn't meant to be a fix for PC accuracy. It's there because monster defenses scale fast enough to cause some annoyances and we see some perks in slowing that down. The 1/2 and 1/3 scaling rates are meant to be a compromise the leaves "miltia proof" enemies in the game while making over levelled enemies less frustrating and under levelled ones relevant a bit longer.

I think the most important thing is to decide, from a mechanical standpoint, how exactly we're going to define a stunt because there are a lot of ways that it could be defined.

I will say I use the term to refer to making a ruling on an improvised action. In short, being able to handle actions the player might not have a specific power for, such as you might see on the oft quoted page 42. I like encouraging improvisation, so I'm inclined to make sure such actions stay on par with what they might otherwise spend those same resources doing.

Honestly, the best approach would be to have the exact same system for skill checks and attack rolls (e.g. both are d20 + total bonuses or d20 + bonus die + total bonuses), preferably with them following identical math (so that the DC for a hard skill check is basically the same as the defense of a monster at that level; it does complicate things for easy and moderate DCs, since the scaling for them would be different, though, in my experience, players tend to gravitate towards using those skills that they've got good mods for and shy away from the ones they have low mods for).

Yeah, I'd agree that having the two match has definite appeal, especially on the simplicity front.

The problem with trying to get all 3 NADs to be decent isn't a problem with the players. It's a problem with the system itself not allowing players to get all 3 NADs to be decent. You only get bonuses to 2 stats and the system assumes that your ability modifier scales by getting the bonus to that stat every single time.

Which is part of why I ask what we're gaining by letting the ability gap increase that's worth having work around. There are ways to preform great feats of strength, deduction, or persuasion beyond just inflating a narrow selection of attributes and letting the rest fall behind. Heck, I'd even be more behind low scale improvements to all attributes so long as it didn't aggravate that gap.

What I'm really trying to say is that, in designing a game, we need to actually go out that figure out all of the allowable elements that contribute to a character's effectiveness we're going to include (and, when we develop more content to add to it, actually stick to it). This lets us predict player performance, which allows us to create a concrete and reliable guideline for GMs in designing challenges for these players.

I definitely agree with this thinking. That's why I started with "what should monster defenses be". Once that's known, we can chop up attack scaling to match that.

On a side note, I've been seeing feats mentioned a lot. Personally, I think they need a bit of retooling in general, maybe split them up by function. I recall neat ideas like teamwork feats that didn't see use because they were competing with things you could really on being present as opposed to requiring multiple players send resources on the same thing.

Nifft

2016-02-29, 09:05 PM

Gotta be honest I would want nothing to do with any impersonation of 4e that tried to ditch half level. Yeah your bias is pretty obvious.

You kept that sacred cow long enough, eventually you decided you must enjoy the smell of bull****.

This seriously makes me question if you've played more than ten sessions of 4e. Well, if the WotC board were still up, I could show you where I came up with the Hexhammer or the other early 4e CharOp stuff. Maybe you can find it in the Wayback? I dunno.

But if you're trying to assert some kind of 4e macho bluster, you're demonstrably ignorant.

- - -

Posturing aside, and hopefully over with, let's talk about what a half-level bonus buys vs. what it costs.

LEVEL BONUS BUYS:
- Some mid-level monsters are easily justified as being too tough for anyone but the PCs.
- Erasing all the numbers on your character sheet and writing slightly larger numbers provides a brief binge of dopamine for some people.

WHAT IT COSTS:
- Armies are worthless. All familiar political power structures are implausible. If you have thinking players, good luck writing a viable setting.
- Once the PCs hit level 11, every town must feature PARAGON GUARDS, and all doors must feature MITHRAL MASTERWORK LOCKS. Where were these guards before? Who made all those locks?
- Level 15 ELITE BRUTE GOBLINS because the DM wanted some continuity from what you did at level 1. You'd kick the butts of any level 1 goblins, of course -- but you never again see level 1 goblins, of course. The fact that you're never going to see the same monster 10 levels later means you can't ever be Sam and Pippin scouring the Shire. 5e does this fantastically well: low-level monsters are still a threat (in large numbers), but you can kick a very sufficient quantity of buttock.
- Your stats are not an increase in power, they're just another step on the Leveling Stairmaster.

THE ALTERNATIVE (a static world with mild scaling Tier Bonus):
- The world exists independently of the PCs. Soldiers are dangerous in large numbers at all levels. Armies matter. A setting can use some real-world political structures.
- The players progress against static targets, instead of running to keep up with moving targets. A lock that was impossible at level 1 is not trivial at level 30, but it's potentially doable.
- More options, not just bigger numbers, mean a more interesting tactical landscape.

UrielAwakened

2016-02-29, 09:14 PM

WHAT IT COSTS:
- Armies are worthless. All familiar political power structures are implausible. If you have thinking players, good luck writing a viable setting.
- Once the PCs hit level 11, every town must feature PARAGON GUARDS, and all doors must feature MITHRAL MASTERWORK LOCKS. Where were these guards before? Who made all those locks?
- Level 15 ELITE BRUTE GOBLINS because the DM wanted some continuity from what you did at level 1. You'd kick the butts of any level 1 goblins, of course -- but you never again see level 1 goblins, of course. The fact that you're never going to see the same monster 10 levels later means you can't ever be Sam and Pippin scouring the Shire. 5e does this fantastically well: low-level monsters are still a threat (in large numbers), but you can kick a very sufficient quantity of buttock.
- Your stats are not an increase in power, they're just another step on the Leveling Stairmaster.

THE ALTERNATIVE (a static world with mild scaling Tier Bonus):
- The world exists independently of the PCs. Soldiers are dangerous in large numbers at all levels. Armies matter. A setting can use some real-world political structures.
- The players progress against static targets, instead of running to keep up with moving targets. A lock that was impossible at level 1 is not trivial at level 30, but it's potentially doable.
- More options, not just bigger numbers, mean a more interesting tactical landscape.

Armies SHOULD be worthless. This is a game about special individuals, not warring armies. The reason there are ancient red dragons is because armies can't beat them. The reason people worship gods is because the gods could come down and crush them if they really wanted to. There should be a tangible fear in the world that, without PCs, the cries of the oppressed would go unanswered.

As for the rest of your points I really doubt you've run a 4e campaign all the way through. Once you hit paragon you're not adventuring in regular towns. All the regular towns already like you. You're adventuring the shadowfell or the feywild, or Sigil. Or the elemental chaos. Places where there's no need for standard locks or human guards. Places where there's actually a threat to the PCs.

The absolute worst aspect of 5e is how everything is always a threat. Goblins are not a threat to a level 15 party. You want them to be a threat? Stop being lazy and come up with a valid story reason why that goblin in particular is so damn strong.

None of your ideas gel with the idea that each tier is a massive leap in terms of danger to the PCs and the world. 5e has a philosophy devoid of heroes reaching deific proportions, and those ideas work there. 4e isn't that game, nor should it be.

Besides, I'm running a game right now with real-world intrigue and armies mattering. It's heroic tier.

If I really need to continue that idea into epic, it's going to be armies of angels versus the forces of hell instead.

Same idea, different soldiers.

Get creative with it, don't depend on the system to prop up tired ideas.

Besides, you can just run an entire campaign in heroic if you want goblins to be a threat the entire game. Paragon just isn't for you in that case, so why try and shove heroic threats into a paragon-sized box? For the same reason I wouldn't try to believably run a heroic tier campaign in the nine hells. You're trying to make the system do something that it doesn't intend to do, and it does a grave disservice to those who want it to work the way it was intended.

Dacia Brabant

2016-02-29, 09:21 PM

Folks, please, chill. Disagreement is healthy, but there's no need to get exasperated with each other. Remember, it's just a game.

And please don't hesitate to read the forum rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1), or reread them if it's been a while.

Nifft

2016-02-29, 09:40 PM

Armies SHOULD be worthless. This is a game about special individuals, not warring armies. The PCs are special individuals, but they exist in a world with nations and states and dragons.

You're saying only the dragons matter, and that's fine for your game, but it's really dumb to impose your specific game aesthetics to everyone else's game.

Note that in my system, your (implausible) world would be possible, but it wouldn't be the default.

As for the rest of your points I really doubt you've run a 4e campaign all the way through. It turns out you are objectively wrong. How does that make you feel?

The absolute worst aspect of 5e is how everything is always a threat. Goblins are not a threat to a level 15 party. You want them to be a threat? Stop being lazy and come up with a valid story reason why that goblin in particular is so damn strong. Again, you're objectively wrong. A level 18 Elite Goblin Lurker is certainly a threat to a level 15 party. It's a threat because LOOK BIG NUMBER. Is that a good reason? Your whole argument is that it is a good reason. (Your whole argument is bad.)

Drop the internet tough-guy act and engage my actual arguments, please.

None of your ideas gel with the idea that each tier is a massive leap in terms of danger to the PCs and the world. They just don't. Your inability to comprehend the obvious consequences of your own ideas is not actually my problem.

But it's also not appropriate for any game other than your own, where apparently your players put up with it.

I am blessed with players who can think, so what works for you would not be viable at my table.

Besides, I'm running a game right now with real-world intrigue and armies mattering. It's heroic tier.

If I really need to continue that idea into epic, it's going to be armies of angels versus the forces of hell instead. You're really writing your own indictment here.

I feel that human beings should matter at all levels.

You think they should be ignored when angel troopers become available.

It's a fundamental incompatibility: I think the world as it exists at level 1 should matter at level 30, and you don't.

That's your problem.

Deal with it.

I seriously can't get over how bad of an argument this is. You can just run an entire campaign in heroic if you want goblins to be a threat the entire game. Son, I don't give a flying polyp if you use goblins at level 15 or not.

What I care about is that PCs live in a world which human beings can understand.

Armies matter in that kind of world.

Paragon just isn't for you No, son, Paragon is very much for me.

What's not for me is your childish number-inflation.

ThePurple

2016-02-29, 10:02 PM

Posturing aside, and hopefully over with, let's talk about what a half-level bonus buys vs. what it costs.

Because you're *obviously* completely unbiased and not completely ignorant of the interaction of level and category in monster design.

- Armies are worthless. All familiar political power structures are implausible. If you have thinking players, good luck writing a viable setting.

They're called minions. If a minion of the appropriate level isn't a threat, you're talking about the heroes being high paragon or truly epic, at which point, yes, they basically break all familiar political power structures.

- Once the PCs hit level 11, every town must feature PARAGON GUARDS, and all doors must feature MITHRAL MASTERWORK LOCKS. Where were these guards before? Who made all those locks?

No, the places that they are adventuring should have paragon tier warriors around. If they want to pick a fight in a town at level 11, there's not much that town can do about it. If you have players that keep wanting to pick fighting against villagers so that you need paragon tier guards to stop them from doing so, I think you need to talk to your players rather than bitching about the game rules being unrealistic.

- Level 15 ELITE BRUTE GOBLINS because the DM wanted some continuity from what you did at level 1.

As previously mentioned, you shouldn't have level 15 elite brute goblins unless your GM is a total dumbass. At most, trained goblin warriors (e.g. non-minion goblins at heroic tier) should be minions at paragon tier.

The fact that you're never going to see the same monster 10 levels later means you can't ever be Sam and Pippin scouring the Shire.

Merry and Pippin weren't paragon tier heroes. They were mid-high heroic tier. Sam and Frodo were probably mid-heroic (most of what they did was walk and hide so they're lower level). In LotR, everyone in the Fellowship *except for* the hobbits was paragon.

- Your stats are not an increase in power, they're just another step on the Leveling Stairmaster.

Once again, the world doesn't level up around you. You level up and get to face higher level areas of the world.

- The players progress against static targets, instead of running to keep up with moving targets. A lock that was impossible at level 1 is not trivial at level 30, but it's potentially doable.

Once again, this is entirely possible and sensible within the bounds of 4e, as I have already said multiple times. You're just too ignorant of the rules to actually consider it.

- More options, not just bigger numbers, mean a more interesting tactical landscape.

I am not really seeing where you're getting this. Decreasing player scaling doesn't provide additional options, unless you're suggesting that there will be more monsters will be viably fought, and that doesn't improve the tactical landscape because reskinning and creating monsters isn't hard, at all, in 4e. Creating new monsters is almost trivially easy with the "MM3 on a business card" rules. Having more published monsters within a viable level range basically means nothing.

Dacia Brabant

2016-02-29, 10:22 PM

A big problem I find in 4e is even though there’s a wealth of options, most combats devolve into at-will slug fests by round 5. You have cover, shifting, bull-rushes, grapples, feints, tripping, aiding, flanking, on and on and on…and so much of it ends up just being at-will spam. It’s heartbreaking. I have a few ideas to remedy that.

1) You have to make non-attack options more valuable. Bull rushing has to do more than just push one square. You should be able to ready a bull rush if an enemy comes close to your fallen ally WITHOUT being punished if they don’t. Likewise, a trip should be a legitimate maneuver that doesn’t punish you because “the best status effect is always dead.” Any revamped 4e combat system should make these options more enticing, and likewise provide other related options for non-martial classes. Maybe player math lags just a bit behind and suddenly aiding and set-up attacks are greatly improved because they tip the math in your favor? No idea, but some incentive is needed. There should also be handy cards that have a list of viable “moves” that players can easily refer to, in order to remember quickly what their non-attack options are in combat.

2) Immediate Reaction/Interrupt attacks slow the game to a crawl. If readied actions aren’t good enough, IRs and IIs are too good. Not only do they give you more attacks per round, they also slow the game down by holding up turns and requiring additional rolls. Any revamped system should force a player using out-of-turn attacks to forfeit their next attack instead. Likewise, readied actions need to be made better so as to not punish their use. Something like, if you ready an attack action and then don’t get to use it, you can make your attack at the end of the round normally as long as there’s a valid target. Something. Anything.

3) Maybe consider rechargeable powers. I’m iffy on this, but a recharge system similar to what monsters use could make encounter powers more viable despite having varying levels of strength, and it would cut a lot of the battles that devolve into at-will spam.

4) A mechanic that dictates battles end when the danger is gone. Most battles are decided by the half-way point anyway, so a good mechanic would be something that determines that once you get to a certain point, things surrender or flee as the case may be. Very few creatures should fight to the death, really only bosses or other major campaign foes that have nothing left to lose. I believe this mechanic has been replicated in some system here or there but I can’t for the life of me recall which one.

I can't speak to the monster stuff, but I agree with most of this.

On 1) Surrealistik's house rules for expanded generic attacks are a good starting point for fixing these. I could also see improving these through class features or feats that allow, say, making a bull rush or a grab as a minor or free action at the end of an at-will attack.

I also think that standing up from prone as a move action (if we're keeping move actions separate) needs to grant an Opportunity Attack to anyone within reach like it did in 3.5E would go a long way toward making tripping relevant again. Standing as a standard action--basically getting up on guard--or for those capable of standing up as a minor or free action--getting up too fast for opponents to react--would not provoke.

On 2) I agree with all of this except having out-of-turn attacks cost you your attack action the following turn. Every defender except Paladin would be severely gimped by that. I think 3.5 had it right by making immediate and swift actions share the same action economy, so I would lean toward having immediate and minor actions do the same. OAs though, I'm not sure what I would do there: they're a huge DPR boost since they're limited to 1/turn, not 1/round, so defenders and especially strikers really rely on them. Maybe cap them at 1/round but have ways to increase the cap sort of like what Combat Reflexes or Line in the Sand do in 3.5/Pathfinder.

On 3) and 4) we're in agreement. I remember morale checks being a thing in AD&D, but it's been so long I don't remember how or if they worked.

Nifft

2016-02-29, 10:23 PM

Because you're *obviously* completely unbiased Also handsome and very clever. Glad you've noticed -- it took you long enough.

No, the places that they are adventuring should have paragon tier warriors around. Why are there non-Paragon places still around when Paragon places could clearly kick the asses of merely Heroic places?

Justify your nonsensical world, please.

As previously mentioned, you shouldn't have level 15 elite brute goblins unless your GM is a total dumbass. You are this GM -- I recommend you be nicer to yourself.

Also, the role I used was Lurker, so you might want to go back and actually read all the words.

Merry and Pippin weren't paragon tier heroes. They were mid-high heroic tier. Sam and Frodo were probably mid-heroic (most of what they did was walk and hide so they're lower level). In LotR, everyone *but* the heroes were paragon. Did you miss where I said Sam?

Apparently yes.

Please just stop, you're obviously not even reading the words I type.

You're just too ignorant of the rules The rules were my bitch when I played 4e regularly.

The flaws in 4e stopped me from playing after a while.

I'm trying to fix those rules right now.

Stop being an sacred-cow fetishist.

ThePurple

2016-02-29, 10:40 PM

The PCs are special individuals, but they exist in a world with nations and states and dragons.

You're saying only the dragons matter, and that's fine for your game, but it's really dumb to impose your specific game aesthetics to everyone else's game.

First off, he's not imposing his specific game aesthetics. 4e is imposing its specific game aesthetics on everyone playing it. Secondly, just because there are nations, states, and dragons doesn't mean that nations, states, and dragons are all supposed to be relevant at absolutely every level.

Note that in my system, your (implausible) world would be possible, but it wouldn't be the default.

It's hard to really say that his world the implausible one since, at the epic tier, you're talking about mortals that can stand toe-to-toe with gods, can learn to teleport at will, and fight ancient dragons and other truly unkillable creatures.

Again, you're objectively wrong. A level 18 Elite Goblin Lurker is certainly a threat to a level 15 party. It's a threat because LOOK BIG NUMBER. Is that a good reason? Your whole argument is that it is a good reason. (Your whole argument is bad.)

And your whole argument is even worse because you keep acting like the universe levels up around the players rather than the players leveling up to explore more of the universe (that is higher level and they couldn't interact with until they got to higher levels). Every goblin you meet in the paragon tier isn't going to be a level 18 elite goblin lurker. Hell, if you're facing a level 18 elite lurker goblin, it's probably an adventurer (and an exemplary one, at that) just like the players are and is entirely justified as a threat because of that.

Drop the internet tough-guy act and engage my actual arguments, please.

I would recommend you drop your delightfully off-putting aggressive attitude, unless you're especially fond of hurling stones in glass houses.

Your inability to comprehend the obvious consequences of your own ideas is not actually my problem.

Your own problem to grasp how the system is intended to interpret various mechanisms as well as what each tier of content is actually intended to portray *is* our problem.

I feel that human beings should matter at all levels.

And yet the game you're playing vehemently disagrees with you. In 4e D&D, when you hit upper paragon, pretty much any human that *isn't* a paragon of humanity (pun intended) doesn't matter in the least. If you don't like that, I recommend you switch games.

It's a fundamental incompatibility: I think the world as it exists at level 1 should matter at level 30, and you don't.

That's your problem.

Deal with it.

Actually, because we're discussing a new version of 4e and you're basically arguing with the fundamental design of 4e and what the tier system actually represents, your beliefs *are* our problem because you're basically trying to monopolize the conversation and impress your views (which are fundamentally at odds with how 4e was designed) on everyone.

What I care about is that PCs live in a world which human beings can understand.

Except that you're talking about a game with different tiers of content. The average human being matter in a heroic campaign. Trained human beings matter in a paragon campaign. Only extremely talented and exceptional human beings (so they're anything but average) matter in an epic campaign. That's how the system was designed. If you don't like that human beings can be rendered irrelevant, restrict your campaign exclusively to the heroic and/or paragon tier. You have a fundamental problem and inability to comprehend what the epic tier is actually supposed to represent.

What's not for me is your childish number-inflation.

I was willing to give your arguments at least *some* consideration because there was some degree of logic behind it. This, though, I am going to outright call you out for your ad hoc attacks on other peoples' views. Other criticisms of you have basically called your authority into question, which is a legitimate concern when discussing something where subjective analysis is one of the primary methods of determining the value of an issue.

Right here, you're simply resorting to an ad hominem attack upon anyone that disagrees with you and is basically just revealing yourself as an incredibly hypocritical person. You chide people for immature behavior and then finish your post with a straight up insult. Have some self respect, calm the **** down, and compose yourself.

Nifft

2016-02-29, 11:00 PM

Right here, you're simply resorting to an ad hominem attack
What I'm doing is responding to ad-homonem attacks, such as this:

This seriously makes me question if you've played more than ten sessions of 4e.

@ThePurple, if you're honest and not just posturing, please do address your criticisms to those who initiate such things in the discussion, not only those with whom you disagree.

ThePurple

2016-02-29, 11:04 PM

Why are there non-Paragon places still around when Paragon places could clearly kick the asses of merely Heroic places?

Because not every threat in the universe exists to go out and conquer it.

For example, take Eberron. Eberron has been explicitly stated by Keith Baker to be an almost entirely heroic tier world with a few exceptions. There are however some paragon and epic tier locations for players of that level to futz around in. Xen'drik is a paragon to epic tier continent. Argonessen is explicitly an epic tier continent (befitting a continent populated by dragons). Sarlona is paragon to epic tier as well.

The reason these continents have not gone out and conquered the world is because most of the threats that reach these levels are either don't give a **** and/or are deep in a jungle continent under a magical curse that basically makes it a bitch to navigate anywhere (Xen'drik), are uninterested in conquest and primarily interested in dealing with their own kind and studying the mortal races without interacting with them (Argonessen), or actually invading the heroic tier world but doing so by infiltration rather than outright invasion (Sarlona).

Those few truly epic tier threats on the main continent (Khorvaire, if you're interested in), are largely kept in line by the other epic tier threats out there or completely uninterested in conquest (their goals tend to be more in line with "become a god" rather than trying to rule over people they could kill on a whim).

You are this GM -- I recommend you be nicer to yourself.

No, I'm not. I haven't used level 15 elite brute goblin as a generic threat in any of my campaigns. If I ever throw a level 15 elite brute goblin at my players, it's going to be an exceptional goblin that is likely an adventurer just like the players.

Also, the role I used was Lurker, so you might want to go back and actually read all the words.

Go back and read the post I was actually quoting. The post I was quoting specifically said "level 15 elite brute goblin". It was next post that changed it to level 18 elite lurker. I recommend you actually read the words rather than just assuming that anyone that disagrees with you is the illiterate idiot you're proving yourself to be.

Did you miss where I said Sam?

No, but it was Merry and Pippin who actually hung out together and were the trained warriors amongst the hobbits. Sam never got combat training because he was walking and sneaking around the entire series, so I used the logical pairing rather than the illogical one.

I will correct what I said though. I meant to say that everyone (in the Fellowship) except for the *hobbits* was paragon.

The rules were my bitch when I played 4e regularly.

Probably because you misread the actual intent of those rules. As I keep saying, since your main problem with the rules seems to be that the average human gets rendered irrelevant at a high enough level, stop playing at those high levels. It's perfectly fine to *not* play in the epic tier.

The flaws in 4e stopped me from playing after a while.

I'm trying to fix those rules right now.

Actually, you're trying to impose your own world-style upon a game system that is fundamentally in conflict with your opinion on how to run your world-style in that game system (re: 4e says don't play the epic tier if you don't like how the average human is rendered irrelevant by then; you say that 4e should change so that the average human is always relevant).

You're not trying to fix the rules. You're trying to make the game something completely different because you disagree with it.

Stop being an sacred-cow fetishist.

The lovely song of someone resorting to ad hominem attacks because they have no other recourse.

ThePurple

2016-02-29, 11:08 PM

What I'm doing is responding to ad-homonem attacks, such as this:

That's not an ad hominem attack that was made against you. That was an appeal to authority, which, as previously stated, is entirely legitimate when we're weighing subjective evaluations of issues.

@ThePurple, if you're honest and not just posturing, please do address your criticisms to those who initiate such things in the discussion, not only those with whom you disagree.

I'm addressing my criticisms at you because you're, by far, the most aggressive and rude person in this entire discussion and seriously need to tone it down and stop acting like the downtrodden hero who is right and everyone else is wrong because they're not as awesome as you are.

Nifft

2016-02-29, 11:10 PM

Probably because you misread the actual intent of those rules. As I keep saying, since your main problem with the rules seems to be that the average human gets rendered irrelevant at a high enough level, stop playing at those high levels. It's perfectly fine to *not* play in the epic tier. But we did play there. We played all the levels, and thus all the tiers.

We wanted the game to work for us.

The game did not work.

If you're trying to say that the game isn't meant to work at Epic tier, then I think that's a thing which can -- and will -- get fixed.

Actually, you're trying to impose your own world-style upon a game system that is fundamentally in conflict with your opinion on how to run your world-style in that game system (re: 4e says don't play the epic tier if you don't like how the average human is rendered irrelevant by then; you say that 4e should change so that the average human is always relevant). I was trying to play:
- Conan
- Fafhrd & Grey Mouser
- Nifft the Lean
- Sparticus
- Odysseus
- Elric of Melnibone

Please point out which of those you feel isn't appropriate for a D&D game.

You're not trying to fix the rules. You're trying to make the game something completely different because you disagree with it. I'm trying to play D&D.

If the rules don't allow that, then the rules can -- and will -- get fixed.

The lovely song of someone resorting to ad hominem attacks because they have no other recourse. I'm responding to personal attacks, so yeah, enjoy the echo.

Nifft

2016-02-29, 11:16 PM

That's not an ad hominem attack that was made against you. That was an appeal to authority No, it was an assertion that I had not played very much, and thus that I was not fit to hold a valid opinion.

That's the essence of a personal attack.

(It was also hilariously wrong, since I've been playing 4e since before the books were published, and was quite active in the 4e CharOpt community -- pointing that fact out isn't a personal attack, but it is a valid defense against one, which is how that fact was used.)

I'm addressing my criticisms at you because you're, by far, the most aggressive and rude person in this entire discussion and seriously need to tone it down and stop acting like the downtrodden hero who is right and everyone else is wrong because they're not as awesome as you are. It's actually just me against two people.

You and UrielAwakened are not everyone.

You're just two people who think you can bully normal posters like me into accepting your poorly thought out opinions.

I do wish you'd stop, it's not helpful and it's not convincing anyone.

ThePurple

2016-02-29, 11:27 PM

That's the essence of a personal attack.

You can interpret it as a personal attack since apparently it's calling into question something that's pretty schematic to your sense of self, but the actual point in question that he was addressing was whether you actually had the expertise to legitimately call into question what was being discussed.

It was the very definition of an appeal to authority.

Keep in mind, I don't really care whether you can rebut him on that question or not (you obviously feel compelled to do so in a highly vehement manner). I would rather judge someone's arguments on the merits of the argument itself rather than who it came from.

You're just two people who think you can bully normal posters like me into accepting your poorly thought out opinions.

Seriously, you're just casting yourself as the victim in order to make us look bad. Keep in mind, you're the one that's explicitly told me that I'm a terrible GM and that I should stop insulting myself because you misread my post. You also tried to act as if I misread *you* and followed it up by being monumentally condescending when I was quoting you precisely.

JBPuffin

2016-02-29, 11:29 PM

So...things exploded after a shift to smaller numbers was suggested. As the guy who suggested using proficiency bonus (which, btw, would probably 2*"tier"[which is not a numbI should say it was a pretty vague suggestion - I never said it had to use their numbers, or how it scaled. It doesn't have to use the exact same numbers.

Adding tier instead of half-level...there's absolutely nowhere for the numbers to GO. I agree that 4e's supposed to model huge gaps in power - Uriel's right, if you fight goblins at paragon they're more like "the aspects of minor goblin deities" or "demon-possessed super-speedster weregoblins" rather than plain old ones. It's not too hard to have events running in the background to justify things - if you must, the locks came when the paragon-level thieves' guild came in from Shiretownville to wreak havoc, as did the guards. Or, you know, you play campaigns that aren't Skyrim on a railroad. *shrug* I also think that you don't always need giant numbers to symbolize giant power - just getting rid of gear bonuses should fix that for the most part, maybe trimming feats and making it so the math works without them and then design the feats and such so that the fact that one guy MAY have +1 more to his attack rolls doesn't mean that you now MUST HAVE THAT +1 (aka, Expertise feats...). 4e did a lot of things well, but that fact that I once had a level 1 rogue with +10 Careful Attack was just unnecessary.

I'm personally phasing out of 4e for now, wanna try 5e some more, but I can see the math may become a serious detriment to the project. What if all you changed was getting rid of gear and feat bonuses and shrunk monster levels by a similar amount? (at level 30, that's something like 10 points off an AC). Forget prof bonus - it was a bad suggestion, hindsight 20/20 - just fix the math that's there. Good luck, y'all.

Edit: And Nifft, if they are personally attacking you (they aren't), you did lash out at Uriel first. Keep it up, and this thread's getting locked down in short order.

ThePurple

2016-02-29, 11:30 PM

The game did not work.

If you're trying to say that the game isn't meant to work at Epic tier, then I think that's a thing which can -- and will -- get fixed.

I'm telling you that the game was not designed to work for the type of game that you're trying to run at the levels that you are trying to run it at. The way you want to play 4e is not compatible with the way 4e was intended to be run at any level except for the heroic and low paragon tier. You do not seem to be understanding this.

I was trying to play:
- Conan
- Fafhrd & Grey Mouser
- Nifft the Lean
- Sparticus
- Odysseus
- Elric of Melnibone

Please point out which of those you feel isn't appropriate for a D&D game.

All of those are completely appropriate for a D&D game. They are not appropriate for a high level D&D game however.

I'm trying to play D&D.

If the rules don't allow that, then the rules can -- and will -- get fixed.

The rules are fine. You just don't like that the way that you're supposed to follow the rules for the game you wish to play don't allow you to go all the way to the max level.

I'm responding to personal attacks, so yeah, enjoy the echo.

Anyone that disagree with you is personally attacking you. Awesome. New definition for the term.

JBPuffin

2016-02-29, 11:32 PM

Out of curiosity, Purple, are you typing on something with a word limit or have an older machine? The slight delay to your responses has piqued my interest.

ThePurple

2016-02-29, 11:35 PM

Out of curiosity, Purple, are you typing on something with a word limit or have an older machine? The slight delay to your responses has piqued my interest.

I'm running a game and typing these responses in short periods of downtime (like a player thinking about what he's going to be doing with his turn).

Also, I have a habit of doing megaposts which take a while to type from the time I start the "respond to quote".

JBPuffin

2016-02-29, 11:37 PM

I'm running a game and typing these responses in short periods of downtime (like a player thinking about what he's going to be doing with his turn).

Also, I have a habit of doing megaposts which take a while to type from the time I start the "respond to quote".

And that is how you multitask :smallwink:. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity.

Nifft

2016-02-29, 11:42 PM

Anyone that disagree with you is personally attacking you. Awesome. New definition for the term. *sigh*

Why do I bother?

No, one more time, THIS is a personal attack:

.This seriously makes me question if you've played more than ten sessions of 4e.

Note the lack of reasoning.

Note the personal focus of the "argument".

If you're having difficulty understanding, maybe take some time after your game to read up on the topic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad-hominem).

ThePurple

2016-03-01, 12:07 AM

Note the lack of reasoning.

Note the personal focus of the "argument".

No, it's an appeal to authority by questioning whether you actually have the experience to have a legitimate opinion. He's attacking your experience, not you personally. You're taking it personally, but that doesn't make it ad hominem.

Shimeran

2016-03-01, 12:21 AM

I was going to reply to some of the points on the last page, but honestly I doubt that will be productive will all the heat flying around. Suffice to say I'm not on board with tier bonuses. Even were I interested in the lower rates Nifft seems to be proposing, I prefer more gradual growth over sudden jumps.

So instead, let's focus on some of the more popular options. I'd say there's enough interest in cutting down the scaling to justify switching to half level for monster defense progression. That opens up the enemy range a bit while still keeping the need for similarly potent countermeasure against epic foes. As I recall, with full level scaling enemies around three or so levels over you started getting frustrating due to the miss chances, so loosening that range would be a plus.

Next up, rerolls seem to be getting a lot of interest as the trained skill perk. I can see the appeal, but it does seem odd to me that training doesn't let you hit higher DCs. In short, rerolls don't let a trained person do better than an untrained one can, they just but more of the trained person's efforts closer to the untrained person's limits. That's why I'm leaning toward bonus die or increasing the die range.

Out of curiosity, I ran some tests on some of the methods mentioned so far:
+5: min 6, max 25, mean 15.5, crit chance 5
+2: min 3, max 22, mean 12.5, crit chance 5
+1d4: min 2, max 24, mean 13, crit chance 5
roll twice, keep one: min 1, max 20, mean 13.82, crit chance 9.75
roll 2d12 instead of 1d20: min 2, max 24, mean 13, crit chance 10.42

Not sure which way I'd go on this. The extra range of the bonus and 2d12 method is nice, though the +1d4 makes me thing the die will get bigger with level, which is fine for skill growth, but kind of odd for a trained bonuses as it implies training at higher levels gets a much bigger kick. Any preferences from you folks?

Blake Hannon

2016-03-01, 06:07 AM

Uriel, Nifft, please calm your tits.We're debating what kind of numerical progression to use for imaginary elf wizards, there's absolutely no reason to get heated.

That said, the tone of the posts aside, I largely agree with Nifft with regards to the actual subject.

I was going to reply to some of the points on the last page, but honestly I doubt that will be productive will all the heat flying around. Suffice to say I'm not on board with tier bonuses. Even were I interested in the lower rates Nifft seems to be proposing, I prefer more gradual growth over sudden jumps.

So instead, let's focus on some of the more popular options. I'd say there's enough interest in cutting down the scaling to justify switching to half level for monster defense progression. That opens up the enemy range a bit while still keeping the need for similarly potent countermeasure against epic foes. As I recall, with full level scaling enemies around three or so levels over you started getting frustrating due to the miss chances, so loosening that range would be a plus.

Next up, rerolls seem to be getting a lot of interest as the trained skill perk. I can see the appeal, but it does seem odd to me that training doesn't let you hit higher DCs. In short, rerolls don't let a trained person do better than an untrained one can, they just but more of the trained person's efforts closer to the untrained person's limits. That's why I'm leaning toward bonus die or increasing the die range.

Out of curiosity, I ran some tests on some of the methods mentioned so far:
+5: min 6, max 25, mean 15.5, crit chance 5
+2: min 3, max 22, mean 12.5, crit chance 5
+1d4: min 2, max 24, mean 13, crit chance 5
roll twice, keep one: min 1, max 20, mean 13.82, crit chance 9.75
roll 2d12 instead of 1d20: min 2, max 24, mean 13, crit chance 10.42

Not sure which way I'd go on this. The extra range of the bonus and 2d12 method is nice, though the +1d4 makes me thing the die will get bigger with level, which is fine for skill growth, but kind of odd for a trained bonuses as it implies training at higher levels gets a much bigger kick. Any preferences from you folks?

I don't think that linear and tier progression need to be exlusive. Turning the 1/2 level rule into 1/3 or 1/4 level, and throwing in an extra +1 or +2 at each tier, should be totally workable. As long as there is a smaller scale of defenses and DC's than in vanilla 4e, I'm happy.

Same thing goes for profficiency bonuses versus 5e style advantage. If we're worried about the gulf between Master and Untrained skill users being too vast, and we're using a tiered skill system, we can do something like:

UNTRAINED: roll 1d20 and add your relevant ability bonus (and possibly a level or tier bonus, if we end up going that route).

TRAINED: roll 1d20 and add your relevant ability bonus twice, and keep the higher result.

MASTER: as trained, but add an extra +2 or +5 to the final result.

That way, being trained in a skill makes you more likely to succeed, and being a master lets you attempt things that most people can't.

Ursus Spelaeus

2016-03-01, 07:47 AM

If you guys would like to mine my 4E rebuild for ideas, please go ahead. :)
If you guys would give me some feedback I would greatly appreciate it!
Thanks.

http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=30640321357458773696

UrielAwakened

2016-03-01, 09:55 AM

Bruno Carvalho

2016-03-01, 10:27 AM

UrielAwakened

2016-03-01, 01:50 PM

Just a minor point: Some of you regarded what I saw about stat maxes and said they were "artificial limitations".
(to remember:)
Stat maxes
Level 1 = 20/+5
Level 11 = 22/+6
Level 21 = 24/+7
Level 30 = 26/+8

But actual 4e ALREADY has a "stat maxes rule" built in. If we remember the +1 to two stats at each level ending at 4 and 8, and +1 to all stats in each new tier, with the actual lvl 1 stat cap at 20, we have the following stat maxes:

Level 1 = 20/+5 (18 base + 2 racial)
Level 11 = 23/+6 (20 lvl 1 + 1 lvl 4 + 1 lvl 8 + 1 paragon)
Level 21 = 26/+8 (23 paragon + 1 lvl 14 + 1 lvl 18 + 1 epic)
Level 30 = 28/+9 (26 epic + 1 lvl 24 + 1 lvl 28)

What I proposed is simply reducing the atual level up bonuses to the stats, not to implement some "stat cap" hardwritten in the rules. We DO need to figure out what will be "max" bonuses at each level to keep our attacks/defenses in a reasonable math in all situations.

Their stats actually max at 30 through Epic Destinies. A max of 30/+10 is much more satisfying than some strange limit of 26/+8. This also gives you a clear cutoff where 20 is peak human, 30 is peak non-deity, and above that are stats reserved for gods, arch devils, demons, etc..

Aesthetics matter.

EDIT: Do you guys not see how...pointless and circular all of this is?

Ability scores, enhancement bonuses, and half level all work with the only component that they need to: Monster math.

You want to change half-levels, because you want to change ability scores? Or you want to change ability scores because you want to change half levels? Or...because of enhancement bonuses?

I just don't really get it. What is the driving reason behind making all of these changes to numbers that already add up? The only reason I can see is being able to use monsters across more levels of play, in which case my simple system of upgrading/downgrading role along the minion/standard/elite/solo continuity every 5 levels accomplishes that in a cleaner fashion.

The only thing I would support is starting monster baseline defenses higher, so as to encourage better tactics to eek out that combat math perk you need to succeed. That, in combination with an advanced stunt/tactics system, would make for more interesting combats.

But all of this half-level/growth/ability score talk does nothing but rearrange deck chairs. Either you think you're rearranging them on a cruise-liner, like I do, or you're rearranging them on the Titantic, in which case...why are you trying to update 4e at all?

Blake Hannon

2016-03-01, 02:10 PM

Their stats actually max at 30 through Epic Destinies. A max of 30/+10 is much more satisfying than some strange limit of 26/+8. This also gives you a clear cutoff where 20 is peak human, 30 is peak non-deity, and above that are stats reserved for gods, arch devils, demons, etc..

Aesthetics matter.

"Everything has to be divisible by ten" is not the kind of aesthetic that matters to me.

UrielAwakened

2016-03-01, 02:12 PM

"Everything has to be divisible by ten" is not the kind of aesthetic that matters to me.

But it does matter to players. Ten is a great number, and a key aspect of game design is presentation.

It also massively oversimplifies my point. Limitations already exist, and the benchmarks are intuitive. This isn't 3.5 where you can stack ability score mods into the stratosphere.

Why do you want to change benchmarks to lower numbers? What design goal does that achieve besides being different? How does it fit the rest of the Heroic/Paragon/Epic paradigm 4e is built on? Is it because 5e did it?

Give me something here.

If you guys would like to mine my 4E rebuild for ideas, please go ahead. :)
If you guys would give me some feedback I would greatly appreciate it!
Thanks.

http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=30640321357458773696

Can you put it in a google doc by chance?

I do most of my work on this project on mobile.

Also:

A lot of this is going to basically boiling down to creating guidelines for gear itself. One of the things that I really want to see happen is to go from the "big 3" gear slots (weapon, neck, armor) to a system where you have a "big 4" (weapon, neck, armor, and arm; arm gear would basically be designed such that *every* arm slot acts as an iron armbands of power to its respective attack type that scales in the exact same manner as the other big 3, starting with +1 at levels 1-5 and increasing by 1 every 5 levels, in addition to benefits like those on non-standard magic gear for the big 3 slots) slots devoted to combat and every other slot largely devoted to augmenting skills (a similar design wherein the piece of gear augments one or more given skills by 1, increasing by 1 every 5 levels, and can also have additional benefits that increase the base item level).

One of the reasons why I like this is that it makes it so that low level gear stops providing the same level of utility at high levels as it does at lower levels (what I like to called the "Boots of the Fencing Master" problem), gives players an outlet for augmenting their chosen skills whether they be their best skills or their worst, and allows us to use a very similar scaling system to attack rolls and defenses for skill checks (as previous stated, I would love it immensely if the DCs for skill checks basically matched NADs).

Can you expand on this more? I like the sound of it but I need to get a better idea of your vision I think. Could this be something that's linked to either damage types, power sources, etc? I envision a world where every damage type matters, instead of it just being the big ones (cold, radiant, thunder, and making sure you aren't using fire or necrotic). They should each have some niche that they add to your overall synergy or build. Likewise, power types seem to do little to differentiate each other beyond their general flavor, and some like arcane and primal are only vaguely differing in execution.

ThePurple

2016-03-01, 03:08 PM

I'd say there's enough interest in cutting down the scaling to justify switching to half level for monster defense progression. That opens up the enemy range a bit while still keeping the need for similarly potent countermeasure against epic foes. As I recall, with full level scaling enemies around three or so levels over you started getting frustrating due to the miss chances, so loosening that range would be a plus.

If we swap to half-level for monster defenses, we're hugely limiting what we're allowed to use for player math because the player side of things has to add up with the monster side of things. 4e already uses half-level for players, so that would need to be reduced to one-third level, or less, so that players can actually get stuff from other sources. We also have enhancement bonuses (which are 1/5) and attribute bonuses (which scale at roughly 1/8). I think we can all agree that a scaling bonus from a feat is bad (any +to hit feat should be a flat +1; the same with the bonus to defense feats), but it I think it's probably acceptable (since some people have already mentioned it) to provide a tier bonus (e.g. +1 at level 1, +2 at level 11, +3 at level 21; effectively 1/10 scaling).

Assuming we use those sources (excluding level), we're already at .425/level; for players to use level/4, we'd need to get that to .250/level. We don't really need the tier bonus any more so we can remove that (reduces our total to .325/level). That just leaves us reducing enhancement bonuses or attribute bonuses. Attribute bonus scaling is actually pretty decent, imo, as long as we give 3 bonus stats at the 4s and 8s rather than just 2 (because only giving 2 is a recipe for screwing over players because they can only get 2 good NADs). I also like the enhancement bonus scaling because, once again, it's a pretty elegant system: to upgrade a magic item's enhancement bonus, it's just 5 levels higher than the previous version.

This isn't even getting into the whole "if players scale at level/4, rarely ever see your numbers go up", and, as much as some people like to disregard it, players like big numbers.

Reducing monster scaling by any whole number doesn't really work because it doesn't allow players to actually have enough factors that contribute to their success to make the player side actually interesting.

though the +1d4 makes me thing the die will get bigger with level, which is fine for skill growth, but kind of odd for a trained bonuses as it implies training at higher levels gets a much bigger kick. Any preferences from you folks?

I would actually limit the training die from growing on its own as you increase in level, and instead require the expenditure of resources to increase it. The only ways that I see the training die increasing with are feats, features, and maybe gear (e.g. skill focus increases die size one level, from +1d4 to +1d6), though I wouldn't start with a 1d4 training die and would probably start with a +1d6.

This does kind of deviate from one of our other goals insofar as using the exact same paradigm for attack rolls as skill checks. Do we want to replace something like the proficiency bonus from weapons with a bonus die (at which point we're equating skill training with attacking with a weapon that you're proficient with, which makes sense insofar as it's keeping with the untrained v. paradigm) or do we want to keep with the standard flat bonuses.

Also, how do people feel about my idea of having skills using the same paradigm of attack rolls insofar as you roll for whether you succeed (skill check/attack roll) and then how well you succeed (damage/success)? If we want to do that, we need to keep that in mind because, at that point, it's a lot more feasible to use the straight mods methodology for skill training (just reduce the mods for skill training such that they match the mods for attack rolls) and allow for variation in quantity of success (which I'm using as the term for skill check "damage").

Assuming we do that, skill training could provide a flat +2 training bonus (to equate with proficiency bonus) and increase your success die from a standard 1d4 (e.g. unarmed) to a 1d8 or 1d10. This would shrink the difference between trained and untrained insofar as the ability to succeed is concerned, but creates a gap insofar as how much success trained v. untrained merits. Essentially, trained characters are slightly more likely to succeed while generating slightly more success on average (and having a higher top end).

In addition to this, I would also recommend separating attribute from skill, so that, rather than all Athletics checks being STR based, some are STR based while others are DEX based (or using the higher of the two mods for the character) based upon how the player intends on using the skill (so trying to physically intimidate someone would be STR + Intimidate whereas trying to insult someone into submission is CHA + Intimidate). This would reduce the problem that often occurs when players are trained in a skill but end up with mediocre bonuses because they don't have a high attribute for it.

UrielAwakened

2016-03-01, 04:03 PM

I like a lot of what you're saying.

My current game and I are actually talking about other changes to make to 4e as we go along, and one we're now going to try to implement is changing Rituals.

Our test is going to be this:

- Everyone can cast rituals.
- Each ritual has one, two, or more skill requirements that you need to have a minimum in to use it (Like 10 Arcana, 5 Thievery for Knock, as an example)
- You still need to find rituals to learn them. You absorb their magic once learned.

We're also going to have effects vary depending on how well the check goes, like if you pass every skill check in the ritual you get a better effect, but even if it fails you get SOMETHING.

I think that kind of plays into your ideas for making skills more interesting than just being numbers that you roll d20s and add to pass or fail.

ThePurple

2016-03-01, 04:05 PM

Can you expand on this more?

Sure.

In the new gear paradigm that I'm suggesting, each gear slot would basically do something different and scale in the same way as Neck, Armor, and Weapon do now. In addition, all gear would follow the same guidelines for non-standard bonuses (re: anything but the default +X bonus that it provides).

To break each of these down based on slot and what the enhancement bonus does (e.g. what the +X bonus after the magic item name affects):

Weapon/implement: attack rolls and damage rolls
Armor: AC
Arms: damage rolls (as an item bonus rather than enhancement bonus though, so it stacks with weapon)
Feet: movement based skill checks (most often Stealth or Athletics/Acrobatics)
Hands: physical manipulation based skill checks (Thievery, Athletics/Acrobatics)
Head: mental and social skill checks
Neck: NADs
Waist: endurance and physical presence (Endurance, Athletics/Acrobatics, Intimidate)

Admittedly, this does kind of load a lot of functionality on the head slot (since the others have 2-3 skills to which they sensibly apply and head slot is like half of the skills on the list), though, feasibly, this could work by shifting that workload onto rings. The biggest problem I see, of course, is that it significantly alters the gearing paradigm by requiring players to progress with a much larger number of slots to remain competitive in their chosen skills. Some of it could probably be counteracted by class features that allow characters to automatically have an enhancement bonus without a magic item (like a Rogue getting +1 enh per 5 levels to Stealth automatically so that, while a fighter might need super cool boots, a Rogue doesn't).

Keep in mind, while these would use the same basic rules as magic items, I wouldn't really expect them to necessarily *be* magic items. The +5 magic boots you're wearing that add to your Stealth and Acrobatics could just be boots made by a mortal cobbler who had absolutely perfected his art (or they were made with exotic materials that muffle the sound). I don't think that just because it provides an enhancement bonus doesn't mean that it should necessarily be magical.

Could this be something that's linked to either damage types, power sources, etc? I envision a world where every damage type matters, instead of it just being the big ones (cold, radiant, thunder, and making sure you aren't using fire or necrotic). They should each have some niche that they add to your overall synergy or build. Likewise, power types seem to do little to differentiate each other beyond their general flavor, and some like arcane and primal are only vaguely differing in execution.

I'd like to comment on this, though I see it as two different issues.

The first, concerning damage types, is I think as much a problem of monster design as it is PC design. Fire and necrotic damage are incredibly bad damage types because they are resisted by so very, very much. Thunder and radiant are absolutely amazing because they're resisted by so little. Cold is amazing because of a combination of incredible feat support (frostcheese, go!) and the fact that they're resisted so little. Even if fire and necrotic had *more* feat support than cold damage, they would still suck, unless, of course, they had such overwhelming feat support that they actually overcame the problem of everything and its cousin resisting those damage types (of course, this would also mean that, to get the same benefits as using cold/radiant/thunder, you'd need to burn more feats, which is a similar issue).

Either more monsters need to be resistant to more damage types or the most commonly resisted damage types need to have feat support that actually allows them to overcome the fact that they are the single most resisted damage types in the game. By this, I don't just mean giving them feats and features that allow them to overcome resistance, but giving them a similar optimization paradigm as frostcheese so that they're absolutely great against stuff that *doesn't* resist them but horrible against stuff that does.

This could also be tackled by basically putting each damage type into a relative tier based upon how effective that damage type is and allowing lower tier damage types to naturally do more damage than higher tier ones. What I'm essentially talking about is making it so that abilities that do fire and necrotic damage are built to have damage die one higher than "normal" (so they use a d10 instead of a d8), and cold, thunder, and radiant are built with one damage die lower than (so they use a d6 instead of a d8). You'd still need to have roughly equivalent feat support for the damage types, but it would go a bit of the way towards making fire more appealing, since you know it's resisted more often but it also ends up doing higher base damage.

As to power types, I'm not sure if it was in this thread or another, but I mentioned that, in my personal homebrew of 4e, I've made power source a much more cohesive mechanic than it is in baseline 4e. I did this in 2 ways.

The first, and most obvious, thing I did was do away with class based utility power lists and instead replaced them with power source based lists (and I made them not just powers but included passive benefits, like the Wilderness Knacks). In this way, all divine characters draw from the same pool of utility features (so any divine character can learn Cure Light Wounds and any arcane character can learn Shield or Dimension Door) that are split up by tier rather than level (so you have heroic utility features, paragon utility features, and epic utility features rather than assigning them based on level).

The second, which is more of a question of class design, was that I was rebuilding every class in each power source around a central thematic construct that guided their mechanics.

For martial characters, their class mechanics were driven by which weapons they were using at that time (so that players could switch weapons in combat in order to change their tactical capabilities). For example, Rogues would be able to reduce their Sneak Attack damage in order to apply ongoing damage when wielding a dagger, reduce Sneak Attack damage in order to daze the target when wielding a club, or reduce their Sneak Attack damage to slow/immobilize their target when wielding a crossbow (this isn't the whole list, btw; there would be a different benefit for each Rogue Weapon). The same was true for the different fighter archetypes I built (I think I had 3 different types of fighters that each had different roles): each weapon category changed how they used their class mechanics.

For divine characters, their damage types and secondary effects of their powers were governed by their deity (largely inspired by how the Devoted Warpriest subclass was designed, though much more general, using categories that a god could fit into rather than creating a separate set of powers for each deity). All divine classes had their damage types governed by what deity they worshiped (so all divine followers of Kord deal lightning and thunder damage while followers of Pelor deal fire and radiant). In addition, there were other aspects that deity choice controlled. A paladin's choice of deity governed what type of damage (and accompanying secondary effect) their retributive effect had. Avengers' choice of deity determined their bonus effect for having both of their rolls hit (a thunder deity like Kord would allow them to push the target; a fire/radiant deity like Pelor would allow them to deal some ongoing damage). Clerics' choice of deity determined the bonus effect granted by their healing word power (a deity of life like Pelor would give additional healing; a deity of creation like Moradin would give temp hp and a bonus to defenses until those temp hp were lost).

For arcane characters, I hadn't really decided on one central concept for them. The ideas I was playing around with for wizard basically coalesced into a wizard choosing, at creation, 2-3 schools of wizardry with which to be proficient (enchantment, evocation, illusion, transmutation, necromancy, etc.) and, during combat, accessing one school of wizardry at a time that would determine which at-will and encounter spells they had access to. They would be able to swap schools as a minor action by burning a special resource (that could also be used to power up their spells based upon their current school) or by spending a standard action otherwise. I designed sorcerers by recycling an old rebuild of wizard that I made a few years back wherein, at the end of each extended rest, they created their own personal spell list by picking damage type (which also determined bonus effect, like cold spells slowing, fire spells dealing more damage, thunder spells pushing, and lightning spells bouncing to other targets) and attack type (e.g. ranged, area, burst, or blast; this also determined the base damage die of the power). Their encounter powers were basically recycled metamagic feats from 3.X that they applied to their encounter powers (like enlarge spell increasing the size of a burst or blast by 1 or allowing a ranged attack to target a second target; enhance spell causing the power to deal additional die worth of damage).

For primal characters, psionic characters, shadow, and ki characters (I've always felt that Ki should be discrete from martial or psionic; psionic monks make no sense) I never really settled on a central design conceit for each. I was playing around with the idea of primal characters either utilizing totem beasts (which worked for shamans and barbarians) or natural cycles (like the seasonal lunar progression, which worked well for druids and shapeshifters). Ki characters, I actually liked the full discipline mechanic and though that would work well as a fundamental mechanic to unite them around, but it didn't really work with the Essentials-style simplicity of design I was aiming for. For psionic characters, I was kind of all over the place, playing around with emotional state (so role basically changing when you get bloodied or suffer a certain status effect), Freudian psychology (Id state as offensive, Ego state as versatile, Superego state as defensive), and some other stuff (I really like the idea of the soulknife from 3.X and was trying to make sure to fit it in, largely as a replacement for the battlemind, of which I am not fond). For shadow characters, I'm still vacillating on whether it even needs to be an actual power source or if it is simply a kind of dark and edgy refluff/reinterpretation of existing classes.

(Btw, if you can't tell, in rebuilding some of the classes, I added stuff that isn't in the classes as currently written)

UrielAwakened

2016-03-01, 04:12 PM

I love so very much of that.

One issue I have though, with making more item slots need to scale, don't you sort of bring back the problem 3.5 had that everyone need to max out like 5 slots to keep their defenses and attacks high, and were severely limited in what they could customize?

I presume in your idea EVERY slot would offer the normal bonuses to skill checks and then also have a secondary trait or power that was unique to that item. Is that correct? Like two pairs of boots would give a +2 bonus to stealth, but one would let you shift as a minor action once per encounter, and another would let you save from being knocked prone.

ThePurple

2016-03-01, 04:20 PM

My current game and I are actually talking about other changes to make to 4e as we go along, and one we're now going to try to implement is changing Rituals.

I have my own set of rules for Ritual Casting, which basically boil down to giving the player access to a couple of special skill challenges (Raise Dead and Create Magic Item) while also basically allowing them to buy successes with ritual components during skill challenges (as long as they can actually explain what kind of ritual they're attempting and why it would be helpful). It has worked for me quite well since I have implemented it because it eliminates the bookkeeping element of rituals (which I despise) and makes them much more freeform and applicable to a wide range of scenarios. Plus, it fits in quite well from a mechanical standpoint by allowing players to spend a resource to guarantee success.

Everyone can cast rituals.

I'm not so sure about this. I can understand the appeal of there being martial (re: non-magic) rituals, but I just have a problem seeing how they're supposed to hold a candle compared to magical rituals. As I see it, a martial ritual is basically a character performing a practiced task, which just means rolling a skill check. A magical ritual is supposed to be an actual feat of magic that can't be performed in combat because it takes too long or requires too much precision/focus.

- Each ritual has one, two, or more skill requirements that you need to have a minimum in to use it (Like 10 Arcana, 5 Thievery for Knock, as an example)

This, I like, though it does prevent some people from accessing a ritual because they don't have high attributes or enough trained skills. I'm also not sure I agree on requiring non-knowledge skills for rituals. I can understand a weather manipulation ritual requiring both Nature and either Religion or Arcana, but I have a problem agreeing with Knock requiring Thievery in addition to Arcana (mainly because, in most books, the wizards that cast knock are generally completely ignorant of how locks actually work, mainly because they never needed to because magic was there).

- You still need to find rituals to learn them. You absorb their magic once learned.

As I said before, I'm really not fond of the bookkeeping element of rituals, especially when you get into stuff like low level rituals that end up being incredibly useful at high levels, when the component cost is basically drops of rain in the ocean.

We're also going to have effects vary depending on how well the check goes, like if you pass every skill check in the ritual you get a better effect, but even if it fails you get SOMETHING.

If it costs the players a non-renewable resource, it should always give them some benefit. Otherwise, you're discouraging players from spending said resources on a risky endeavor.

It also seems like you're turning rituals in a micro skill challenge, which I'm not really fond of, mainly because I think they should either be the *entire* skill challenge (to represent some truly impressive feat of magic, like raising the dead) or should be a quick and simple option to take *during* a skill challenge. A lot of it boils down to making sure that rituals don't change the pace of play: either they *become* the task at hand, or they exist to expedite it.

UrielAwakened

2016-03-01, 04:24 PM

I think I agree with a lot of what your saying. If I could revamp 4e from the ground up for this game, I'd probably gravitate more towards what you're describing. Within the confines of the system, though, I have less wiggle room.

Maybe it works, maybe not. We'll find out I guess.

ThePurple

2016-03-01, 04:32 PM

One issue I have though, with making more item slots need to scale, don't you sort of bring back the problem 3.5 had that everyone need to max out like 5 slots to keep their defenses and attacks high, and were severely limited in what they could customize?

There is definitely a problem insofar as it basically forces players to have all of their slots equipped with up to date magic items, which definitely makes it more of a gear churn (and very much MMO-like). I'm trying to think of a more elegant solution than forcing everyone to wear gear in every slot to remain competitive, but I'm stymied.

I presume in your idea EVERY slot would offer the normal bonuses to skill checks and then also have a secondary trait or power that was unique to that item. Is that correct? Like two pairs of boots would give a +2 bonus to stealth, but one would let you shift as a minor action once per encounter, and another would let you save from being knocked prone.

You are most definitely correct here. All slots would basically follow the big 3 paradigm of +X enhancement bonus (default item level 1 with enhancement bonus increasing every 5 levels) and could come with an additional feature by increasing the default item level.

One of the examples that I have made in the past was for the arm slot. Because basically *everyone* gets either iron armbands of power, bracers of archery, or the equivalent for their arm slot, just make it so that every arm slot acts as iron armbands of power (they're already level 6 for a +2 bonus so they already fit the scaling perfectly), just with the different armbands providing their bonuses in addition to that default benefit (with a commensurately higher item level). For example, let's turn the Hammer Shield into a magic item using this new design. It would be a level 8 magic item that provides a +2 item bonus to melee damage rolls (I vacillate on how important it is to preserve the melee v. ranged v. implement split) while also providing the +1 bonus to defenses when you hit with a hammer. Later on, a player could upgrade it to a level 13 Hammer Shield, which would provide the same passive benefit (which shouldn't scale because it's a modifier to a d20 die roll that is not an assumed element of our natural scaling) while also providing a +3 item bonus to melee damage rolls now.

Ursus Spelaeus

2016-03-01, 05:07 PM

Can you put it in a google doc by chance?

I do most of my work on this project on mobile.

Good idea!

My 4E hack, everyone.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5lURTK3WQGPbHpNSHlUeUNwRVk/view?usp=sharing

Bruno Carvalho

2016-03-01, 05:15 PM

Why do you want to change benchmarks to lower numbers? What design goal does that achieve besides being different? How does it fit the rest of the Heroic/Paragon/Epic paradigm 4e is built on? Is it because 5e did it?

Give me something here.

The intention is to reduce the specialist / non specialist divide. With base 4E as is, we might easily have the situation where one character got a 28 stat (+9 mod) and trained (+5) for a +14 mod in a Skill (this could be even greater with racial, feat, item, and lots of other bonuses). Another character of the same level would have a 12 stat and no training for a +1 mod in the same Skill. So how do you choose a DC for a challenge that all party must overcome when one guy got a +14 bonus and the other guy got a +1 bonus?

(Btw, i'm not counting level/tier bonuses because those would be equal for both characters).

ThePurple

2016-03-01, 05:45 PM

TSo how do you choose a DC for a challenge that all party must overcome when one guy got a +14 bonus and the other guy got a +1 bonus?

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

The problem with the specialist/non-specialist divide is not simply a problem with the system math. It is as much a problem with options that players select as it is a problem with the players themselves.

The specialist/non-specialist divide can really be traced back to the early days of D&D when each character was intended to have a certain, very specific role in the group. You brought a fighter for combat, a thief for traps/scouting, and a magic-user for some utility and dealing with the few threats that the fighter couldn't. If there was a trap, the fighter and magic-user basically stood back and let the thief do his thing. If there was a weird problem that could only be dealt with by magic, you can probably guess what the fighter and thief ended up doing. Pretty much the only time that everyone actually contributed to the same problem was combat (which makes sense because that's the primary scenario the game is built around, thanks to its roots in wargaming).

The problem is that 4e isn't actually built to encourage the specialist/non-specialist divide from a tactical standpoint because the game is designed such that everyone is expected to be able to contribute in all conflicts (whether it's combat or a skill challenge). The player mindset, however, hasn't really evolved and many parties often end up with one character who has amazing bonuses to knowledge or social checks but absolutely laughable bonuses for every other one because, in their mind, they're designing a character that is supposed to handle all checks of that type. When players evolve from that mindset to adapt to the "everyone should be able to contribute in all situations" model, it gets a lot better, mainly because that generalist mindset encourages players to take options that give them at least *something* to do in their non-specialized scenarios, even if it's not absolutely amazing.

You can also encourage this mindset by giving out more skill training than the game does by default since 4e was really stingy with giving out skill training to anyone except rangers and rogues. You could outright *require* this mindset by giving out skills to classes based upon categorization of skills, such that a class gets X trained physical skills, X trained social skills, and X trained mental skills so that they always have at least 1 trained skill that can be reasonably applied in a given scenario (even if it's not really the "optimal" skill to use).

Now, from a system math point, there are still some problems. The gap created by being trained in a skill and being untrained is absolutely huge (+5 bonus? srsly?). If you're not trained in a skill, even if you have a good attribute bonus, you're still kinda hosed because you're automatically half as likely to succeed as you otherwise would have been (because the math is designed with the idea that you have roughly a 50% chance to succeed; -5 penalty reduces that to a 25% chance to succeed).

We can solve this by abandoning the notion that skill checks need to use different numbers than attack rolls and should even use the exact same system. The notion that a success is a success is a success just doesn't make sense to me for the same reason that, in combat, a hit is a hit is a hit. Turn skill training into the equivalent of being proficient in the appropriate weapon (e.g. grant a small proficiency bonus and a better damage die than "unarmed") and start using equipment bonuses that operate the same way as combat gear.

Once you do that, the only problem is that combat math is always based off of the assumption that you're using your best attribute modifier for the attack roll, and, honestly, you shouldn't always be using your best attribute modifier for a given skill check because it doesn't really make much sense to be able to use INT as your modifier when you're trying to jump over a chasm (DEX, sure, but not INT).

The solution for this is relatively simple, honestly: you either separate skills from attributes outright or you make it so that each skill uses the best of 2 attributes like NADs do (so Athletics is STR/DEX, Endurance is WIS/CON, Arcana is INT/CHA, etc.) so that you dramatically increase the likelihood of a player having a viable (maybe not *optimal*, but at least *viable*) attribute to use for their skill check. Combined with a system that either highly encourages or outright forces players to create generalist rather than specialist skill lists, and you effectively minimize the chances of a player not having *something* they can do to realistically contribute to a skill challenge.

In summation, if you combine a design that changes the player mindset from skill specialism to skill generalism coupled with separating quality of success from chance of success, you make it much easier for people who *aren't* built around a specific skill challenge to actually contribute by making it easier for them to succeed but contributing less when they do (while preserving the high chance for a trained person to succeed and provide them with an explicit mechanism that shows that they *are* contributing more when they do succeed).

Shimeran

2016-03-01, 06:47 PM

Like I said, 4e has a lot of issues but generally scaling is not one of them.

The thing is people do have problems with the scaling, as note in these posts:

Armies should never be completely irrelevant. PC's should be able to escape higher level monsters if they happen to wander into one. Bounded accuracy does wonders for worldbuilding and campaign/adventure design.

Advantage is one of 5e's better innovations - I'd encourage using it. I'm also a fan of the extra die for training, or even (and this is crazy) using 5e's proficiency bonus idea in lieu of half-level. It doesn't need to be bounded, just...tighter.

I guess my issue with the power scale in dnd is the multiple tiers of walking apocalypse. As it is, a level 15 solo monster can't be hit by the level one peasant, and is functionally a walking apocalypse to normal people. A level 30 solo is a walking apocalypse TO the walking apocalypses. By the time a character is powerful enough to even think about fighting the tarrasque, he's been living in a la la land where absolutely nothing in the "normal" world is relevant to him for at least ten levels.

The reason I started floating around the reduced scaling in the first place was to provide a compromise. I specifically proposed that because I wanted to keep scaling by level while also meeting others half way.

That being said, I will say I've seem some annoyances from the current scaling in play. In particular, I've seem it contribute to dragging out fights with higher level enemies due to the increased whiff factor. As such, I can sympathize with reduced scaling arguments, even though I strongly prefer having beasties that need not fear the militia.

That being said, I could see addressing some of this other ways, such as a split easy and hard DC. I think I mentioned using a fixed base DC to allow for more partial success at higher levels, acting as a kind of gradually more prominent miss effects.

The whole point of this, though, is that full-level is an easy progression for monsters that lines up perfectly with half-level for players.

It's really not a perfect line up. They needed to patch it with a feat and even then if falls behind by a point unless you take an ability boosting epic destiny. (15 half level + 4 ability growth + 6 enhancement + 3 expertise = 28 vs the 29 points monsters get going from 1 to 30)

You pretty much need to remove enchantment and ability bonuses, or else half-level, to PCs to make that math work.

I'm actually all for removing enhancement bonuses. Since they're part of the scaling the net effect is to make characters increasingly ineffective if they don't have those item. I dunno, I just find it more awesome when my epic warriors are awesome enough to do things like drop a boulder on their foes.

Honestly, enhancement bonuses seem like a kind of sacred cow hold over. After all, as you yourself said:

We're not making D&D. We're making 4e. Which only kept those things because of nostalgia.

That was in reference to ability scores, but it looks to me like generic +x weapons and armor aren't that far off.

By the same token, I prefer my magic items be awesome because of what they let me do rather that less readily apparent number boosts.

And without that gulf in power between tiers, suddenly monster strength is, well, much less meaningful between tiers.

I don't really feel the need for nigh immunity to separate the tiers. It's certainly something I like seeing in epic threats, but I could take it or leave it with paragons. Honestly, even at half scaling they're already going to be missed more often than not. Do we really need to push things one tier above into the "only hit on a crit" range to make them stand out?

weaseldust

2016-03-01, 07:55 PM

One option is to have bounded accuracy for limited success and unbounded accuracy for unlimited success. The intention being that large differences in numbers are possible and have significant effects, but they don't leave anyone irrelevant.

A hypothetical example: commoners with bows can hit and wound a dragon to drive it off (limited success), but to land a killing blow requires beating a higher AC (for physical or magical reasons, depending on taste) that only a high-level adventurer can hit.

A hypothetical application to skills: characters have both unbounded bonuses and a level-dependent bonus cap. When making a skill check, you only get to add bonuses up to your cap. But if you succeed, you calculate what happens when you add your full bonus. If you beat some higher DC, you achieve something beyond mere success (you pull off a stunt, or you get a +5 coolness bonus to your next attack, or whatever).

Shimeran

2016-03-01, 10:29 PM

I don't know. I get the idea, but adding twice seems like a potential slow down.

On a whim, I went and checked the MM3 numbers as the army vs high level beastie pair off keeps coming up. Since the army in question is NPC's they'd be stated up as level 1 monsters for +6 vs AC. That means they reach "only hit on a 20" status at AC 26. Since AC is set to 14 + level, that makes level 12 the tipping point, so all of 2 levels into Paragon and you've hit that point.

Interestingly enough, apparently a large enough army of said archers could still take things down. After all, the auto-hit on a 20 rule is still in effect, so on average you can expect 1 an average of 1 hit round per 20 troops, doing an average of 9 damage per hit or 0.45 dpr per troop. Given the target 12th level monster would have ~120 hp, A band of 267 archers could down it in 1 round, while 67 could do it in the the standard 4 rounds.

Level 30 bumps hp up to 264, meaning you need a whooping 587 can 1 round them, while 157 can do it in 4 rounds, provided they live that long.

Granted, those are big numbers all around, but considering armies often measures in the thousands, those are pretty reachable. So in short, it look like the "20 is always a hit" rule means armies are a potential threat, regardless of how high you set the defense scaling.

I'll freely admit this all a drastic simplification as the army has to assemble and open fire without the higher level opponent escaping, but none of that is dependent on the numbers we seem to be going round in circles about.

At this point, maybe we should stop worrying about armies being relevant and focus on the smaller scale.

JBPuffin

2016-03-01, 11:56 PM

At this point, maybe we should stop worrying about armies being relevant and focus on the smaller scale.

I'm not sure how many people were on board with this in the first place - Nifft, clearly, but mundane armies being mundane and therefore not terribly significant after 13th level or so is totally fine.

As to monster vs player #s, where could we give players that +1 for free? Maybe a class feature? If that's all it takes to make monsters scale 100% properly, for a 4e fix it's perfect. If one were to cut monsters to half-level and players to a quarter, Uriel, and thereby shrink the range of numbers you could have, what ways specifically does this negatively affect players' perceptions?

What if inherent bonuses were the default and magic items only provided special effects? My dad primarily gives out magic gear for the critical damage (weaps/imps) and special effects b/c he uses IB. Cutting magic item bonuses as a variable, not necessarily the numerical impact, makes sense - low magic games can exist w/out breaking the math, then, which I believe was part of why IB was introduced. It could also soften feat bonus needs, which means instead of math fixers we get super-fun-time effects.

Shimeran

2016-03-02, 02:09 AM

I'm not sure how many people were on board with this in the first place - Nifft, clearly, but mundane armies being mundane and therefore not terribly significant after 13th level or so is totally fine.

Fair enough. I mostly ran that to see where the break point is. The army stats were just an offshoot.

As to monster vs player #s, where could we give players that +1 for free? Maybe a class feature? If that's all it takes to make monsters scale 100% properly, for a 4e fix it's perfect.

I'm not sure. Since we're talking about switching to mods instead of scores maybe put +1 at level 11 and 21. The thing is, that only works if you keep in expertise, which I'm not enthused about. Without expertise, you're looking at +4 to make up.

What if inherent bonuses were the default and magic items only provided special effects?

That's my preference, honestly. Things like flying carpets, cloaks of invisibility, and flaming swords all get my imagination going more than "you can hit harder and more accurately with this for some reason". Heck, I'd even be more interested in extra damage if it came with some kind of descriptor to support the fiction like the aforementioned flaming or being supernaturally sharp. For that matter, weapons that guide you hand do have potential, but they loose their flavor if everything does that in the same fairly bland way.

ThePurple

2016-03-02, 11:10 AM

As to monster vs player #s, where could we give players that +1 for free? Maybe a class feature? If that's all it takes to make monsters scale 100% properly, for a 4e fix it's perfect.

Just bake it into the natural math the game provides: a +1 bonus per tier and call it the tier bonus. It's effectively the same as providing Expertise and Improved Defenses for free except you also free up the feat bonus slot for something more interesting (and balanced) than a global increase (like making all conditional bonuses from feats feat bonuses in order to limit their stacking).

If one were to cut monsters to half-level and players to a quarter, Uriel, and thereby shrink the range of numbers you could have, what ways specifically does this negatively affect players' perceptions?

The problem with shrinking the numbers by half isn't just with player perception. As I've said before, it's in limiting the amount of variables that players have access to. If you halve the contribution players get from level, you also have to halve any bonuses from enhancement (which, sure, you could just assume scales in the same way as the tier bonus, so +1/10 levels; you'd still probably want to provide a new version every 5 levels, with a higher enhancement bonus to damage though, so a heroic tier weapon is +1 to hit and either +1 or +2 damage, paragon tier is +2 to hit and either +3 or +4 damage, and epic tier is either +5 or +6 damage, just to make sure damage scales properly as well) and attribute bonuses (this is probably the hardest because you need to make it so that attribute bonuses matter without exacerbating the old "odd numbers are pointless" problem; if you cut that in half, you end up with "anything not divisible by 4 is basically worthless", dramatically reducing any sense of progress in stats that players have; it also ends up cutting down damage).

I'm still wondering what exactly the reason for a change to the math in the first place is beyond someone people's apparent allergy to big numbers? Is there a legitimate mechanical reason to do away with 4e's incredibly elegant math (namely, that monsters scale by integers rather than something divisible). Nifft's concern (e.g. regular people become irrelevant) seems to basically have been dealt with because a large enough number of minions can still cause damage to high level monsters (gogo Law of Large Numbers!) so that army problem isn't really a problem, not to mention that you could also deal with it just by limiting the level range/tier of the campaign you're running (like restricting a game inspired by Conan or the Odyssey to the heroic tier rather than assuming that every campaign should have players becoming paragon or epic *which was never intended*).

The argument that it gives players or GMs more tactical option is totally fallacious because the number of monsters at any given level is functionally infinite due to the incredibly simple monster level math. Furthermore, halving the level progression of monsters should also end up screwing the monster experience math. Those numbers are designed with the assumption that players don't fight anything too much higher or too much lower than their own level. If a level 1 monster is still a somewhat relevant opponent for a level 11 PC, that level 1 monster should not be giving out absolutely irrelevant amounts of xp. Shrinking monster growth rate has repercussions beyond simply changing the math.

What if inherent bonuses were the default and magic items only provided special effects? My dad primarily gives out magic gear for the critical damage (weaps/imps) and special effects b/c he uses IB. Cutting magic item bonuses as a variable, not necessarily the numerical impact, makes sense - low magic games can exist w/out breaking the math, then, which I believe was part of why IB was introduced.

The problem with trying to cut magic item bonuses from the balance equations is that it makes it easier to run low magic games but makes it much more difficult to run high magic games and takes away a vast majority of the impetus for adventuring (namely, acquisition of gear).

You can more easily design a system for a high magic game (re: one in which enhancement bonuses are full) that can also handle a low magic campaign (re: one in which magic items are uncommon/rarely used) because of the inherent bonuses rule than you can design a low magic campaign (re: one in which enhancement bonuses are halved or eliminated) that can also handle a high magic campaign (re: one in which players are assumed to have magic items that grow at a significant rate).

Any system that attempts to be able to incorporate both high magic and low magic is only going to be able to do so by creating separate/additional rules that translate one into the other, and, honestly, the least complicated solution is the one that allows a low magic campaign to function in a high magic game (because all you have to do is add an inherent magic item bonus that scales with level rather than trying to create some system by which you reduce the scaling of the high magic gear while preserving the different levels of effectiveness).

It could also soften feat bonus needs, which means instead of math fixers we get super-fun-time effects.

Any math fix needs to be accomplished through a non-feat mechanism. The 4e devs were complete idiots to force players to spend a feat on a math fix. They should've just released errata that increased everyone's d20 rolls by +1 per tier, which is exactly what we should do with this rebuild in order to fix the math.

The other major math fix we need to do is actually balance out and create explicit guidelines for PPs and EDs, mainly because there is a vast gulf between the best EDs (coughcough demigod), which generally add to one or more attributes, and the worst/mediocre ones (which often add to no attributes), which just increases the variance in ability mod and can easily screw with the predicted scaling.

UrielAwakened

2016-03-02, 11:14 AM

I currently give my players a +1 to hit at 5/15/25, which is about the points where they need that kick-up to maintain the balance.

Even doing it at 11 and 21 would be fine though.

The other major math fix we need to do is actually balance out and create explicit guidelines for PPs and EDs, mainly because there is a vast gulf between the best EDs (coughcough demigod), which generally add to one or more attributes, and the worst/mediocre ones (which often add to no attributes), which just increases the variance in ability mod and can easily screw with the predicted scaling.

Not just PPs and EDs, but also PC powers and even monster abilities.

For having such a great hitting/missing mathematical balance, powers and paths are just a complete cluster****.

We should design a points-based system for power design that can be used to tell if one power or feature is too good compared to anything else at its level. I mean, the difference between a standard action, melee power that targets Fort, deals 1d8 and slows and a minor action, 1d8 close blast 3 power that targets Ref and dazes (save ends) is huge. We can easily quantify that stuff.

ThePurple

2016-03-02, 11:20 AM

That's my preference, honestly. Things like flying carpets, cloaks of invisibility, and flaming swords all get my imagination going more than "you can hit harder and more accurately with this for some reason". Heck, I'd even be more interested in extra damage if it came with some kind of descriptor to support the fiction like the aforementioned flaming or being supernaturally sharp. For that matter, weapons that guide you hand do have potential, but they loose their flavor if everything does that in the same fairly bland way.

The reason that so few magic items beyond the big 3 slots tend to get much attention is, honestly, heavily influenced by the fact that so very many of them are given disproportionately high levels that render their benefits irrelevant by the time players are high enough to actually get them.

Flying carpets are level 20/level 30 magic items, which is nuts. Aladdin was not an upper paragon/epic character. He was heroic. Cloaks of Invisibility are level 23/28 magic items, which is similarly nuts. Harry Potter was also a heroic hero, not epic or paragon. Both of those items should definitely be *rare* (e.g. players can't buy them; GMs have to give them out), but they definitely should not be restricted to the epic tier.

If people have a problem with magic items tending to just be bonus stat sticks, fix the magic items so that the items that aren't bonus stat sticks actually have appeal and are practical items to gain. Another change that would definitely make non-stat sticks a lot more practical would be to make the inherent enhancement bonus rule a standard aspect of the game (or something in the core rules rather than in the errata/non-core rules) rather than one that a lot of newbie GMs miss.

ThePurple

2016-03-02, 11:23 AM

We should design a points-based system for power design that can be used to tell if one power or feature is too good compared to anything else at its level. I mean, the difference between a standard action, melee power that targets Fort, deals 1d8 and slows and a minor action, 1d8 close blast 3 power that targets Ref and dazes (save ends) is huge. We can easily quantify that stuff.

I'm not so much on board with a points-based system for power design as I am for creating more well defined guidelines similar (but more explicit) than the monster damage rules.

Stuff like giving expected damage per round and modifiers for applying additional effects (like reducing damage by XXX amount for a power that slows a target).

A points based system is problematic when trying to deal with the variation in weapon damage die.

UrielAwakened

2016-03-02, 12:09 PM

I'm not so much on board with a points-based system for power design as I am for creating more well defined guidelines similar (but more explicit) than the monster damage rules.

Stuff like giving expected damage per round and modifiers for applying additional effects (like reducing damage by XXX amount for a power that slows a target).

A points based system is problematic when trying to deal with the variation in weapon damage die.

Disagree. You simply have (W) be what you consider the baseline, power wise, based on what most players are expected to take for their weapon. Then you use other dice amounts as the variance, either + or - a certain threshold.

You could also just have expected damage per level for powers, and let powers be "low" or "high" and have a chart for that too, kind of like how monster damage works.

Anyway I'm more talking about effects than I am damage.

iPlayMindflay

2016-03-02, 01:28 PM

Disagree. You simply have (W) be what you consider the baseline, power wise, based on what most players are expected to take for their weapon. Then you use other dice amounts as the variance, either + or - a certain threshold.

You could also just have expected damage per level for powers, and let powers be "low" or "high" and have a chart for that too, kind of like how monster damage works.

Anyway I'm more talking about effects than I am damage.

I personally have used this in my rework of the PHB [I've got the Paladin, and Rogue left class wise (no PP or ED's done yet)]. I worked off the assumption that At wills are 1.5[W] damage, Encounter powers start at 2[W] (increasing by .5[W] for each EP including PP powers) and Dailies start at 4[W](increasing by 1[W] per DP including PP powers e.g. lvl 29 Daily is 11[W]+mod). [W] on average is assumed to be a d8.
I also built with the assumption (design choice) that Blasts and Bursts deal damage rolled divided by number of targets to each target on a hit. (e.g. Attacking 3 creatures with Scorching Burst (Wizard lvl 1 At will) deals (1d6+mod)/3 damage to each target hit and decreases their Will by one until the start of your next turn). This was in an attempt to extra DPR from multitarget attacks. (Twin strike is now a burst 20, Target: One or two creatures. Two attacks for (1[W]+mod)/2 each. (the .5[W] being greater chance of being able to use HQ).

Ongoing 5 damage =1[W]
Slow, +2 to one attack(AC), Immobilize = .5[W]
+2 to attacks for one round (AC), CA=1[W]

Unfortunately all my info is on paper but once I finish all the classes in the PHB I'll upload it and share it with you for feedback.

Also to fix the lagging NAD, I've decided to, at levels 4, 7, 14 etc., increase all scores by 1. (Level 7 is a boring level, level 8 is not).

Zireael

2016-03-02, 02:42 PM

While we're at it, what the heck is [W]? It's the one thing in 4e I could never understand...

UrielAwakened

2016-03-02, 02:45 PM

Weapon.

It stands for your weapon die.

So 4[W] and a weapon die of 1d8 is 4d8, while if your weapon was 2d6 it'd be 8d6.

ThePurple

2016-03-02, 05:43 PM

Disagree. You simply have (W) be what you consider the baseline, power wise, based on what most players are expected to take for their weapon. Then you use other dice amounts as the variance, either + or - a certain threshold.

If you do this, you have to create a separate point system for each class, and, even then, it can get problematic when you consider that certain classes, like Rogue, have extreme variation in what their damage die tends to be (dagger is d4 and rapier is d8, both of which are supposed to be entirely legitimate options for the class to use), on top of which is the fact that some classes (e.g. strikers) get damage from sources other than the powers themselves (e.g. Sneak Attack and Hunter's Quarry).

You could also just have expected damage per level for powers, and let powers be "low" or "high" and have a chart for that too, kind of like how monster damage works.

The problem with that is that the high/moderate/low classification doesn't really work well when you factor in the relative value of given additional effects. A power that slows should do less damage than a power that immobilizes, which should itself do less damage than a power that dazes, stuns, or dominates. Does that mean that an attack that gets the "slowed" rider should be high damage, immobilize moderate damage, and stun/dominate low damage? Where does a power that just does damage (or provides a bonus, like a power bonus to attack rolls for an ally or granting a saving throw?) factor in there?

Anyway I'm more talking about effects than I am damage.

The problem is that the effects themselves need to be interpreted in terms of how much damage it should cost a player in order to generate that effect.

Instead of creating a point system where you purchase different effects, it's better to just determine how much damage of an action of a given potency (re: at-will, encounter, or daily, as well as whether it's a multi-attack or AoE) should deal relative to the base damage, and then provide modifiers for additional effects and status effects (it's possible we could change the cost of status effects depending upon tier because slowing at heroic tier is much more disabling than slowing at epic tier, since you have so many other movement/attack options at epic tier).

Because base damage is pretty much arbitrary, I'll ignore it for now (we're dealing with how much damage powers should deal relative to one another, not how much damage they should be dealing total).

First, we determine what the relative potency of a power is based on its usage, which is basically an arbitrary distinction. We'll say that encounter powers should be 25% more effective and daily powers should be twice as effective.

Next, we apply effects based upon the number of targets it's possible to hit. Burst 1 powers and blast 3 powers are half as effective (if you catch more than 2 targets in a burst 1, you're getting the additional damage as a bonus for good tactics) with each increase in size from there increasing the cost by another multiple (such that a burst 2 power would be one-third as effective), and powers with straight up multiple targets or attacks divide their damage by the number of possible attacks it can make. If we ever create an artillery role, I would probably allow them to deal 25-50% more damage with AoE and multi-target (but not multi-attack) powers.

So a single target at-will power can deal 100% of the listed damage, as does an area burst 1 daily power (100% * 2 * .5). A single target encounter power would deal 125% of the listed damage, and an encounter power that provides 2 attacks would deal 62.5% (100% * 125% * .5).

You can then change this value by choosing riders, which are separated by which role they are most appropriate for. Each role to pick up riders equal up to 25% from their own categories for free. Riders are then subtracted from your potency value.

Strikers non-damage secondary effects are generally mobility, so, under their category would include shift 1 (worth 25%), move speed (worth 25%), and shift speed (worth 50%). Strikers can also elect to just take a 25% increase to their *final* damage rather than choosing a rider (they are the only ones that get to do this).

Leaders would get stuff like temp hp (25%), +2 bonus to attack roll (25%), secondary mod bonus to damage (25%), +2 bonus to one defense (25%), +1 bonus to all defenses (25%), and granted attack (100%) each of which is applied to an ally within 5 and lasts until end of next turn. The bonus can be applied to all allies within 3 by doubling the cost of the rider and can last until the end of the encounter by multiplying by 4 (needless to say, a granted attack cannot last until the end of the encounter both because it makes no sense and because it adds up to more than 225%). Leader secondary effects (only when used by leaders) do not require the power to hit.

Defenders would get most of the same stuff as leaders, with the exception that it can only be applied to themselves and needs the power to hit.

Controllers get to choose riders like slowed (10%), knocked prone (25%), immobilize (50%), daze (75%), stun (100%), and dominate (225%). Effects can be made to last until save ends by doubling their cost (yes, this does mean you're never allowed to have a dominate that is save ends or AoE nor are you allowed to have a power that dominates unless you're a controller, and a stun that is either save ends or AoE has to be a daily power that deals no damage).

Forced movement should probably be in there as well, probably as a defender and/or controller rider.

Finally, you select whether it's an implement or weapon attack and which defense it targets. An implement attack gives you an additional 25% that you can spend on riders whereas weapon attacks provide nothing. Targeting a NAD costs you 25% whereas targeting AC costs you nothing (yes, this means that you could have an implement attack targeting AC, which I, for one, find interesting since it goes along with the idea that you could have a spell that creates a physical object that needs to penetrate the target's armor rather than just striking them).

You would then have everything needed to figure out how much damage a power is supposed to deal, using this formula:

Base damage * (1.00 * usage * targets - (sum total of all selected riders)) * (Striker bonus if taken).

Finally, attacks that automatically hit (e.g. magic missile) have their final damage halved, and ongoing damage is directly subtracted from base damage (re: ongoing 5 damage just counts as 5 damage; this is because ongoing damage is not immediately applied, so a monster can still get some actions/contribute before the damage fully manifests).

For example, we'll create a striker at-will power that just deals damage. It's a single target at-will, and we'll be taking the 25% increase to final damage instead of a normal rider. We'll have it be a weapon attack that targets AC. Our attack is going to deal 125% ((1.0 * 1 * 1 + 0) * 1.25) of the listed base damage.

Next, we'll create a leader encounter power that gives an ally an attack. It's single target, and an encounter, but we're choosing to take the granted attack rider for a significant penalty. However, because it's for a leader, that's ameliorated somewhat (since we've got that bonus 25% when used for leader riders). It'll also be a weapon attack (since I'm imagining this as more of a warlord type), but, because we want it to be more accurate, we'll have it target Will instead of AC (it's a feint to open up the target for our ally's attack). Our attack is going to deal 25% ((1.25) * 1 * 1 - .25 - 1 - .25) of the listed base damage in addition to granting an ally an attack. We could also tweak it further by taking another rider for 25% (so that it deals no damage) and granting that ally a bonus to the granted attack roll (like giving them bonus damage).

I'll admit that you could probably break this down into a point system of some kind, at least as far as the riders and other elements that are intervals of 25% are concerned (slowed could just be half of a point so that slowed save ends is a whole point). One advantage of this is that we can also fold in a modifier for damage type (like fire damage being 10% higher and cold being 10% lower; we'd need to do some analysis of what and how common certain resistances are as well as what benefits will be derived from given feats for doing so however).

Shimeran

2016-03-03, 12:24 AM

I'm still wondering what exactly the reason for a change to the math in the first place is beyond someone people's apparent allergy to big numbers?

Well I've mentioned a time or two previously that the current scaling does seem to make certain big fights more dragged out and frustrating and have yet to see any responses on that.

Specifically, fights about 3 to 4 levels higher can start dragging characters toward the point they miss more than hit. Seeing as you're supposed to pepper in a few fight in that range, I consider that a flaw. Granted, there are other ways to mitigate that. I've already said I'm in favor of making miss effects and their equivalents increasingly common at higher levels and doing so would help with this issue.

What's the general opinion about using a second lower dc to allow for partial success, much like tasks can have an easy and a hard dc? Alternately, I suppose the miss effects can be written into the power themselves, though that doesn't give room for partial success, keeping the results very binary.

The problem with trying to cut magic item bonuses from the balance equations is that it makes it easier to run low magic games but makes it much more difficult to run high magic games and takes away a vast majority of the impetus for adventuring (namely, acquisition of gear).

Only if you define high magic games as ones with enhancement bonuses, that's a very specialized and subtle effect that plenty of magic items in stories don't seem to have. Personally, things like djinn powered airships and spell cannons seem more high magic to me, unless your arguing a high magic setting is one where folks are more dependent on magic. If you do in the enhancement bonuses, both high and low magic games still get the same bonus (because there is none), so you don't have to retool the math.

Honestly, that ties into why I'd rather do away with those bonuses. With them, epic heroes actually have fewer options than their lower tier counterparts. Things like say strangling a seemingly impervious lion with one's bare hands becomes a lot less viable if you can't hit anything without your semi-divine weapons. You can't do things like use improvised weapons without either taking a massive accuracy hit or having the DM handwave an equivalent bonus in and that exactly the kind of thing I'd expect to see around that tier. In short, I want my thor counterparts to swing mjolnir because it hits hard and flies true, not because it's the only reasonable means he has on hand of actually hurting any threats that are worth his attention.

Any math fix needs to be accomplished through a non-feat mechanism.

The other major math fix we need to do is actually balance out and create explicit guidelines for PPs and EDs, mainly because there is a vast gulf between the best EDs (coughcough demigod), which generally add to one or more attributes, and the worst/mediocre ones (which often add to no attributes), which just increases the variance in ability mod and can easily screw with the predicted scaling.

One these two point at least, we're in agreement.

Heck, I'd kind of like to do away with the majority of straight roll boosting feats unless they also act as incentives to shape how the character is played.

The reason that so few magic items beyond the big 3 slots tend to get much attention is, honestly, heavily influenced by the fact that so very many of them are given disproportionately high levels that render their benefits irrelevant by the time players are high enough to actually get them.

Flying carpets are level 20/level 30 magic items, which is nuts. Aladdin was not an upper paragon/epic character. He was heroic. Cloaks of Invisibility are level 23/28 magic items, which is similarly nuts. Harry Potter was also a heroic hero, not epic or paragon. Both of those items should definitely be *rare* (e.g. players can't buy them; GMs have to give them out), but they definitely should not be restricted to the epic tier.

There's another one i'd agree to.

If people have a problem with magic items tending to just be bonus stat sticks, fix the magic items so that the items that aren't bonus stat sticks actually have appeal and are practical items to gain.

It's kind of hard to compete with always on +30% hit change and bonus damage on every attack without throwing something like a stat bonus at them.

That being said, my complaint has more to do with the need to rely on such items hurting the inherent awesomeness of characters that should be starting to challenge the gods under the right circumstances.

ThePurple

2016-03-03, 09:50 AM

Specifically, fights about 3 to 4 levels higher can start dragging characters toward the point they miss more than hit. Seeing as you're supposed to pepper in a few fight in that range, I consider that a flaw.

You're conflating "fights" with "monsters". Players are supposed to face 1-2 fights that are 3-4 levels higher than them during each level. This does not mean that you're supposed to throw out fights consisting of 4-5 monsters 3-4 levels above the party. It means you're supposed to use a larger experience budget than normal so that you're throwing out 6-8 standards worth of monsters (so a solo and 10 minions or a pair of elite and 3-4 standard monsters) that are within 1-2 levels of the party.

A higher level fight doesn't necessarily mean that you're using higher level monsters. A GM should always try to make sure that any monster that the players are fighting is within an appropriate level range.

What's the general opinion about using a second lower dc to allow for partial success, much like tasks can have an easy and a hard dc?

I think it overcomplicates things.

Alternately, I suppose the miss effects can be written into the power themselves, though that doesn't give room for partial success, keeping the results very binary.

At best, miss effects should be reserved for encounter and daily powers (and, honestly, I could support providing miss effects for all encounter and daily powers that aren't reliable/triggered). At-will powers shouldn't have miss effects.

Only if you define high magic games as ones with enhancement bonuses, that's a very specialized and subtle effect that plenty of magic items in stories don't seem to have.

I'm using the term game to refer specifically to the game, not the story or campaign setting (which I would refer to as a high magic campaign). So, yes, a high magic game is one in which players use enhancement bonuses and need lots of magic items in order to progress. This does not mean that it's necessarily going to be a high magic campaign (enhancement bonuses could be derived from incredibly high quality mundane gear that is simply so awesome it provides enhancement bonuses).

Honestly, that ties into why I'd rather do away with those bonuses. With them, epic heroes actually have fewer options than their lower tier counterparts. Things like say strangling a seemingly impervious lion with one's bare hands becomes a lot less viable if you can't hit anything without your semi-divine weapons. You can't do things like use improvised weapons without either taking a massive accuracy hit or having the DM handwave an equivalent bonus in and that exactly the kind of thing I'd expect to see around that tier. In short, I want my thor counterparts to swing mjolnir because it hits hard and flies true, not because it's the only reasonable means he has on hand of actually hurting any threats that are worth his attention.

This is actually one of the reasons why I like Ki Foci and think that a lot more classes should get access to them (i.e. any and all martial classes) and that holy symbols should use similar rules (so that a weapon using paladin or cleric just needs a holy symbol rather than a weapon). They're a single magic item (that takes up your holy symbol/ki focus slot) that applies its enhancement bonus to any weapon you wield as well as unarmed attacks. It doesn't even need to really be something psionic or ki driven either. In one of my campaigns, the player's ki focus is a pair of books that she received from her mentors; the more she reads it and uncovers the history of the story written in it (the story was written 10k years ago during a previous age), it's going to become more powerful.

Hell, even my players like Ki Foci so much that, out of the 8 players in my 2 current games, 5 of them are using the elemental initiate theme because it gives them access to ki foci (as well as an extremely nice encounter power).

I believe that we need to keep enhancement bonuses as a mechanic, but that doesn't mean that I believe that the entire gear system as a whole should be kept. It needs a pretty good overhaul.

Heck, I'd kind of like to do away with the majority of straight roll boosting feats unless they also act as incentives to shape how the character is played.

I'm somewhat ambivalent on the topic of straight roll boosting feats. On one hand, they're a simple choice for players to select to receive a tangible improvement to their capabilities. On the other hand, they're really boring and generally powerful enough that players basically *have* to take them to be effective. I think that I would be more okay with some of the straight roll boosting feats if players had an incentive to end up not using them on occasion, like having weapon focus/specialization/etc feats but providing reasons for players to change their weapon mid-combat (such as designing martial classes so that, rather than having to pick which weapon they're good with during creation/leveling up, they basically get all of those bonuses and get to cherry pick which one they wish to use by switching weapons in combat).

It's kind of hard to compete with always on +30% hit change and bonus damage on every attack without throwing something like a stat bonus at them.

Keep in mind that I'm a proponent of making it so that all items basically provide an enhancement bonus of *some* kind to one or more skills so everything is going to have a +X bonus to hit and damage (since I'm also a proponent of changing the skill/success system to match the attack/damage system).

The only items that I could imagine *not* having a bonus like that would be things like magic carpets (which should be considered in the same vein as boats, wagons, and the like rather than magic items explicitly counted against the players).

That being said, my complaint has more to do with the need to rely on such items hurting the inherent awesomeness of characters that should be starting to challenge the gods under the right circumstances.

Which is where inherent enhancement bonuses come into play.

Shimeran

2016-03-03, 10:33 PM

Alright, before I get into responses I'm going to run some number again so we can see where we're at.

At first level a PC with proficiency (+2) and 18 post racial bonus (+4) will have +6 to attack vs AC. Going past that means restricting weapon choices and/or maxing investment in a single stat to the notable detriment of others. Against a same level monster (AC 15 from 14 + level), that's a 60% hit chance.

So far, so good. Without proficiency we're down to a 50% chance and if using a baseline stat we're at 40%, annoying but workable. The somewhat pesky part is that this accuracy drops by 5% for every level the monster has on them, so against monsters 3 levels past them they're actually missing more that their hitting.

Now let's ramp that up to 30th level. The PC has gone up to (2 prof + 15 level bonus + 8 ability bonus + 6 enhancement bonus + 3 expertise) 34 or 35 with the miscellaneous +1 freebie. That keeps them at the same base 60% accuracy vs an AC 44 monster.

The impact of using a non proficient weapon is the same, but losing the ability bonus hurt a lot more. Their baseline is up by 1 from the improvement to all abilities, but that's still a 7 point loss, dropping their AC all the way down to 25%. Losing enhancement bonus is almost as bad, dropping us to 30% accuracy.

I'll grant that the system assumes that you're pretty much never without your weapon and can always make an attack with you best ability. However, this does not bode well for skill check if we have them follow the same model.

You're conflating "fights" with "monsters".

Not really. I recall seeing monsters 3+ levels beyond the party fairly regularly as part of encounter design. On the off chance my memory is faulty, I checked the DMG and on page 58-59 found encounter templates that included level +3 monsters in standard encounters ("Commander and Troops" and 1 variant of "Double Line") while pretty much every template had a least 1 hard variant 3 or more levels higher.

This does not mean that you're supposed to throw out fights consisting of 4-5 monsters 3-4 levels above the party.

While the DMG doesn't use that many of them per fight, it does indeed suggest throwing enemies in that range at the party. Maybe they revised it later and I missed it, but it's hard to say you're not supposed to do it that way when a guide specifically written for people running the game tells you to do so.

A GM should always try to make sure that any monster that the players are fighting is within an appropriate level range.

I'll readily admit that's good advice from an encounter design perspective.

The thing is that appropriate level range is a bit on the lean side. A soft cap of 2 levels higher looks kind of small when each tier has 10 levels. For a bit of perspective, that means half way through a tier you'd miss twice as often as you hit against things at the end of the tier. If you actually want a 50/50 chance to not spend a round sitting on your thumbs against end of tier foes, you've got to be 80% of the way through that tier.

So if you want a reason beside an "apparent allergy to big numbers", there's one for you. Being able to actually fight more things in your tier without whiffing all the time is a reason. That might not match your own desires, but hopefully you can at least see the appeal.

I think it overcomplicates things.

I'll admit it's easy to see how that can get awkward. It's at least in part an attempt to address the skill disparity. Given that folks seem reluctant to tone down the spread, I'm open to counter suggestions.

Honestly, I'm starting to suspect we should just let each class get "this skill is your hammer" and "here's how to make everything a nail". If we're looking to make skills like attacks, that makes a certain amount of sense as each class always has a way to attack, even if the means are different, and there's relatively little variation between the actual attack bonus each class is hefting.

At-will powers shouldn't have miss effects.

I disagree with you on this front. Having no effect on a miss is frankly boring and a little frustrating. I'd rather have at least something happen each turn, even if the effects are minor. Having a miss effect also helps mitigate the effects of low accuracy, which is easy to run afoul of with faster level scaling and a high bonus spread.

On a side note, despite the name "miss effects" don't need to mean the target is actually missed, just that they resisted or avoided the worst of the attack, given that armor and heartiness can increase "miss" chances against the appropriate defenses. If anything, actually missing could easily be set to a much more slow scaling or even fixed difficulty as in fights with skilled combatants it's more likely that foe avoids hard by actively defending than that their opponent outright misses.

This is actually one of the reasons why I like Ki Foci and think that a lot more classes should get access to them (i.e. any and all martial classes) and that holy symbols should use similar rules (so that a weapon using paladin or cleric just needs a holy symbol rather than a weapon).

I believe that we need to keep enhancement bonuses as a mechanic, but that doesn't mean that I believe that the entire gear system as a whole should be kept. It needs a pretty good overhaul.

Tell you what, I'd be willing to go with enhancement bonuses if the character get them themselves, in effect baking inherent bonuses in. That way you're only losing around 1 point of accuracy if you need to improvise. I could even see making those bonuses tied to power sources to give them a bit more flavor. To use your example, a martial character might be able to enhance all their weapons strikes while a divine character might enhance their attacks with a quick blessing.

Keep in mind that I'm a proponent of making it so that all items basically provide an enhancement bonus of *some* kind to one or more skills so everything is going to have a +X bonus to hit and damage (since I'm also a proponent of changing the skill/success system to match the attack/damage system).

Do you want to hit skills next? Honestly it's an area I'm even more concerned about with the given bonus spread. After all, drop from a 60% chance to a 25% chance using an off ability might not happen often with attacks as you've got class granted attacks that align with your ability scores. However, there's currently no such guarantee for say a fighter who say wants to try being stealthy or diplomatic. Heck, the proficiency bonus by itself is hefty enough to swing the chance by a whopping 25%.

ThePurple

2016-03-03, 11:46 PM

The impact of using a non proficient weapon is the same

As I see it, players should always be getting their proficiency bonuses if they're using a weapon attack. In your previous example that was basically Hercules fighting the Nemean Lion, I would posit that Hercules most definitely had some kind of unarmed proficiency (mainly because ripping things apart with his bare hands is kind of something that he did on a regular basis), so he would be getting the +2 proficiency bonus for that. He's probably also dealing significantly more than the normal d4 weapon damage die when he's ripping things apart. On top of that, he probably also had some kind of feature that allowed him to use improvised weapons more effectively.

, but losing the ability bonus hurt a lot more.

I agree with this wholeheartedly, but that's what feats like Melee Training (and the very similar Weapon Fineese style feats) and basic attack replacement at-wills are for. For multiclass/hybrid purposes, I'd probably include feats that allow you to use your highest ability bonus instead of the listed one when using powers from that class.

I'll grant that the system assumes that you're pretty much never without your weapon and can always make an attack with you best ability. However, this does not bode well for skill check if we have them follow the same model.

Yeah, that's one problem, though I think that ability bonus replacement feats are equally viable here, especially when you get up to higher levels where players end up having a copious number of feats. You could also include various magic items (and the skill powers I mentioned before) that allow you to use an attribute of your choice instead of the one determined by the skill/DM (once again, assuming we agree to separate ability mod from skill).

While the DMG doesn't use that many of them per fight, it does indeed suggest throwing enemies in that range at the party. Maybe they revised it later and I missed it, but it's hard to say you're not supposed to do it that way when a guide specifically written for people running the game tells you to do so.

I would then argue that the DMG was written at the very start of 4e's life cycle and that a lot of other stuff in there, most importantly, the monster creation rules, was changed and updated later on, when people realized various problems. Any new version of 4e should change the guidelines to more mathematically appropriate ones.

The thing is that appropriate level range is a bit on the lean side. A soft cap of 2 levels higher looks kind of small when each tier has 10 levels. For a bit of perspective, that means half way through a tier you'd miss twice as often as you hit against things at the end of the tier. If you actually want a 50/50 chance to not spend a round sitting on your thumbs against end of tier foes, you've got to be 80% of the way through that tier.

+/-2 is 5 levels of viability for monsters. It does drastically limit the options DMs have at level 1, but I've always found that level range to be all that I really needed. Of course, I actually don't have a problem using monsters of a significantly lower level (up to -4) than the PCs (though I cap myself at 2 levels higher than the PCs), mainly because monsters missing isn't as big of a letdown as it is for PCs (especially since, if you have significantly lower level standard monsters, they're basically fancier minions).

That might not match your own desires, but hopefully you can at least see the appeal.

I can see the appeal (because missing is boring as hell), but I don't think that the solution is shrinking the numbers that players and monsters use. I think that the solution is to tweak the monster/encounter guidelines.

Honestly, I'm starting to suspect we should just let each class get "this skill is your hammer" and "here's how to make everything a nail". If we're looking to make skills like attacks, that makes a certain amount of sense as each class always has a way to attack, even if the means are different, and there's relatively little variation between the actual attack bonus each class is hefting.

You can reduce the skill training disparity by changing the skill check system to be identical to the attack/defense system, with skill training acting as the counterpoint to weapon proficiency (and using tools appropriate to the task could basically act as using a superior weapon and increase that bonus by 1).

The ability mod disparity is solved by allowing for powers, feats, and other player options that allow players to change the ability mod used for a skill check.

I disagree with you on this front. Having no effect on a miss is frankly boring and a little frustrating. I'd rather have at least something happen each turn, even if the effects are minor. Having a miss effect also helps mitigate the effects of low accuracy, which is easy to run afoul of with faster level scaling and a high bonus spread.

I think that's something we'll just have to disagree on. I wouldn't object to an optional rule that does something like having all at-will powers that deal 1[W] + abilty mod just deal ability mod damage on a miss as a compromise.

On a side note, despite the name "miss effects" don't need to mean the target is actually missed, just that they resisted or avoided the worst of the attack, given that armor and heartiness can increase "miss" chances against the appropriate defenses. If anything, actually missing could easily be set to a much more slow scaling or even fixed difficulty as in fights with skilled combatants it's more likely that foe avoids hard by actively defending than that their opponent outright misses.

This kind of ties into one of the topics I've wanted to broach for a while but haven't really found an appropriate segue.

It's always bothered me that heavy armor makes you harder to hit when, in reality, it makes you easier to hit and simply serves to make attacks deal less damage. While I don't think that damage resistance is the proper way to implement that in a game (mainly because it's way too easy to break damage resistance), ablative armor could be implemented as bonus hp.

The way I'd do this is have heavy armor scale with the exact same progression, just as a reduced value, and provide additional hp (that doesn't increase surge value or bloodied value, though). The exact values would need to be figured out, but I think it could work out and provide a greater thematic disconnect between heavy armor and light armor users, so that heavy armor tanks act as meat tanks whereas light armor tanks act as avoidance tanks.

I could even see making those bonuses tied to power sources to give them a bit more flavor. To use your example, a martial character might be able to enhance all their weapons strikes while a divine character might enhance their attacks with a quick blessing.

As long as we keep inherent bonuses (e.g. your character's natural amazingness), I think it would be best to provide something akin to a ki focus for all power sources, which applies to any attack the character makes, so, if your character wants to be able to use a bunch of different weapons, they would use a magical focus instead of a magical weapon, but if they want to focus on using a single specific weapon, they get a specific magic weapon (you'd probably need to make magic weapons slightly better than magical foci in order to give players a mechanical justification for not being able to use any weapon they stumble upon).

Do you want to hit skills next? Honestly it's an area I'm even more concerned about with the given bonus spread. After all, drop from a 60% chance to a 25% chance using an off ability might not happen often with attacks as you've got class granted attacks that align with your ability scores. However, there's currently no such guarantee for say a fighter who say wants to try being stealthy or diplomatic. Heck, the proficiency bonus by itself is hefty enough to swing the chance by a whopping 25%.

As I said higher up, reduce the skill training bonus from +5 to +2 and provide player options (powers, feats, features, etc) for them to use alternate ability mods for skills and you make it so that a player that isn't trained and has a low ability mod can still contribute (albeit less than someone who is trained or focused on a given skill, which is appropriate, imo).

This would of course mean that the math for success (e.g. skill challenge "hit points") would need to be different than that for monsters (which makes sense).

Btw, what did you think of those power guidelines I posted above?

Shimeran

2016-03-04, 08:47 AM

Of course, I actually don't have a problem using monsters of a significantly lower level (up to -4) than the PCs (though I cap myself at 2 levels higher than the PCs), mainly because monsters missing isn't as big of a letdown as it is for PCs (especially since, if you have significantly lower level standard monsters, they're basically fancier minions).

Running with that thought, you could cook the minionization into the system a bit more. Here are a few ways you could do that off the top of my head.
Give bonus damage if you beat their defense by a certain amount, say 5 or 10. This has the side effect of potentially openning up the bonus spread by making the effects less binary.
Riffing off the above, you could allow maximized damage for beating their defenses by 10 or so, acting as a kind of soft crit.
Allow a kind of reckless fighting option that them boost their accuracy at the cost of not being able to use their guard (hp) for 1 round. This lets enemies minionize themselves to stay threatening. Players are unlikely to use it unless they're really desperate, but mooks may.

You can reduce the skill training disparity by changing the skill check system to be identical to the attack/defense system, with skill training acting as the counterpoint to weapon proficiency (and using tools appropriate to the task could basically act as using a superior weapon and increase that bonus by 1).

The ability mod disparity is solved by allowing for powers, feats, and other player options that allow players to change the ability mod used for a skill check.

I'm fine with these ideas. However, I'm starting to wonder if we can't simplify the math a bit. The players are adding up 5 to 6 factors (2 proficiency + 15 level + 8 ability + 6 enhancement + 3 tier + 1 misc) vs the monsters 2 (base + level).

Of those, about 19 points will always apply (level + tier + misc), in which case we might as well have used 2/3 as they'll always be used together. We're further taking steps to ensure enhancement bonuses are always available and that the character can use their strong abilities as often as possible. So after all this, it looks like we're basically working to push the vast majority of rolls in a tighter range of around +/-2 or so.

I sincerely think that tighter range is a good thing. I'm just not sure that detailed breakdown is worth it if it's only going to matter on rolls we're trying to avoid anyway. Maybe we can merge those scaling bonuses and simplify things. I'll need to think this through more, but off the top of my head I'm thinking:

Give a bonus to favored actions equal to monster defense scaling.
Treat any action that uses your favored abilities as favored actions.
When using a magic item of your own level or higher, gain a +1 bonus to the check.
When using action that aren't favored, drop the bonus to half your level.
Scale defenses as favored actions.

So that ability to add full level scaling to say all strength checks replaces ratcheting up the strength score, while the bonus for using higher level magic items merges inherent bonuses and enhancement bonuses.

Btw, what did you think of those power guidelines I posted above?

The general idea of using percentages is a solid base, adjustments will need to be made. I'm a bit crunched for time now, but will go into details later. Off the top of my head, multi-target damage should probably scale at (1 + num targets) / 2. I did some calculations years back and that formula compensates for the drawback that reduced damages leaves more enemies alive longer to inflict more damage longer. That doesn't factor in minions, but unless we're spefically intending heave use of them I doubt that will pull the number up to the point when it becomes a straight num targets multiplier.

Shimeran

2016-03-06, 12:22 PM

Uh-oh. I hope things aren't petering out here.

Following up on the point break down, while we should be doing calculations like that in the background, the end results will be in a "[W] + mod" format or the equivalent. That gives us a certain limit on how fine tuned the percentages will get. For example, having some encounter powers be 1[W] with strong riders vs 2[W] with weaker riders is familiar. Having 1[W] + mod + 2 for something in between is a bit more unusual. It's workable, but may be more fined grained that some folks are looking for. I'm not really sure which side I'd fall on personally as I don't mind the extra mod.

One thing to take into account is that a lot of powers do seem to have a kind of soft "utility budget" built in for things like forced movement and mobility. It's not strictly utilities only as some powers do just add damage. However, they are in the minority and most that do have special conditions or restrictions on it. I'd also note those little something extra they add seems to be tied to roles, with strikers usually getting mobility, for example.

Actually, come to think of it, any weapon at wills are usually good examples of this as they're pretty strong in the "attack + perk" framework, with extra damage being a rare option.

It's always bothered me that heavy armor makes you harder to hit when, in reality, it makes you easier to hit and simply serves to make attacks deal less damage. While I don't think that damage resistance is the proper way to implement that in a game (mainly because it's way too easy to break damage resistance), ablative armor could be implemented as bonus hp.

The most common issue I've seen raised for armor as temp hp is what happens when they remove the armor. Also, if the temp hp on 1 armor is exhausted, can they just wear another. It's possible you could borrow a page from some of the superior armors in late 4e. I vaguely remember that had a limited pool of extra hp per fight. I'd just be careful to keep a eye on the complexity, especially as anything that bulks out the system has been getting push back.

On a side note, part of the issue you listed with heavy armor has to do with the language the system uses and the assumptions that go with it. A common argument for armor as written is that it takes a superior hit to overcome stronger armors, with less strikes simply glancing off or being absorbed.

One way of working around that is to do something similar to the "touch AC" mechanics of 3e. Basically say falling below some lower value is a outright miss while falling below armor gives a reduced effect. Any splitting of the damage like that could contribute to a percentile DR effects, though setting it up to showcase a toughness versus avoidance tank would take some finessing. I image the avoidance version would have higher variation, being more likely to either take high damage or negligible damage.

UrielAwakened

2016-03-07, 09:29 AM

I think all the math talk killed people's interest.

Admittedly it's a strange place to start when it needs the least work.

Ursus Spelaeus

2016-03-07, 05:44 PM

So what are our publication goals?
Is this going to be a creative commons thing available for free?
Is this going to be put up for sale?
Just a fun thing posted on a message board? Or on a wiki?
Will we be compiling a pdf?

Dacia Brabant

2016-03-07, 07:22 PM

I think a lot of that is going to depend on the finished product: if it's something we can get people excited about enough to generate a successful crowdfunding effort, we might be able to get it printed up. I work in publishing, so I can help with that. It may be though that we'll need to have it in PDF or wiki format at least initially.

Still interested by the way, I just didn't feel I had anything to offer on the system math discussions.

What I'd like to propose, and it's basically the reason I put this together in outline format in the first place, is that we handle this on a project basis: that is, if there’s a particular piece or pieces of the game that anyone would like to concentrate on, that they would head up that part of the project. Is there any interest in handling it this way?

For my part, I'd mainly like to work on the Core side, specifically the stuff that's for players.

ThePurple

2016-03-07, 10:57 PM

I think all the math talk killed people's interest.

When you get down to it, though, the entire game is just math with fluff, and, while the math for 4e was good, it was still short of 4e's goal of being well balanced through the entire lifetime of a character.

Personally, I'm not all that interested in the fluff, as written, mainly because I readily refluff stuff in order to fit my game world as well as player characterizations. I enjoy generating math or figuring out the proper math *for* different players' fluff but creating the fluff itself isn't really an area of interest of mine.

So what are our publication goals?
Is this going to be a creative commons thing available for free?
Is this going to be put up for sale?
Just a fun thing posted on a message board? Or on a wiki?
Will we be compiling a pdf?

I'd be happy as long as we put out *something* that looks legitimate, mainly because I would love to get into game development, which is incredibly difficult to get into if you don't know someone or don't have something already published in the first place.

Is there any interest in handling it this way?

I would think that's probably the best way to handle it, though, rather than breaking it up into the Core v. Extension set up in which it seems like we're trying to update (e.g. go through and create new errata for pretty much everything to bring various options back in line) 4e, I, for one, would rather act like we're creating an entirely new system that is inspired by 4e (especially since I think it's generally agreed that the skill and skill challenge systems need to be completely revamped), at which point I think it's best to break the project down into the mechanical components and guidelines for content creation and afterwards start creating the content.

Shimeran

2016-03-07, 11:28 PM

I think all the math talk killed people's interest.

That's entirely possible and something mechanically oriented folks like myself can easily miss.

Admittedly it's a strange place to start when it needs the least work.

The funny thing is I was going to say we actually started with things like renaming things, ability scores / mods, and defenses. Then on checking I found one of the first ones about a specific topic was this:

The biggest things that need fixed are A) The math, and B) The grind.

Combat needs to go faster, and you need a way to correct the weird feat taxes that exist so they're no longer necessary.

So perhaps not so surprising if it's a big things that needs fixing but shouldn't take a lot of work to fix. Another thing that caught my eye from that post was this bit:

I would also completely decouple ability scores from attack rolls. Have them only influenced by level.

I don't know as cutting ability mods from attacks will be an easy sell, though we could scale down how it contributes readily enough. Come to think of it, if started the damage contribution at something like "score / 3" and let that improve to "score / 2" and eventually just "score" we'd still have a use for ability scores themselves.

The bit I found particularly interesting though it that the only influenced by level bit seems to be the same conclusion I've just circled around to 6 pages later.

What I'd like to propose, and it's basically the reason I put this together in outline format in the first place, is that we handle this on a project basis: that is, if there’s a particular piece or pieces of the game that anyone would like to concentrate on, that they would head up that part of the project. Is there any interest in handling it this way?

In that case, I think breaking the discussion up into subtopics is great idea so you don't get topic burn out like we started seeing here. One of the biggest issues there would be making sure the sub-projects stay in synch, so you'd likely want someone in a coordinator role.

A wiki might work well for that purpose as they can have discussion pages built in. In fact, building it like an online SRD might not be a bad idea as I've found those to be great references from the player side of things.

In terms of project interest, I suspect from this discussion you'd likely see ThePurple and I on at least a few of the core system topics. :smallsmile:

Ursus Spelaeus

2016-03-07, 11:41 PM

Well, I think we need to rear it back and come to a consensus on a simple mission statement or set of principles we can refer back to.
Otherwise we're just going to go back and forth arguing about how best to rename familiar concepts and how to fiddle with individual mechanics in isolation from everything else.

I mean, I'm writing my own 4E hack independently while I pop in to check on you guys, and even though it is far from coherent at this stage, I set out with a few clear ideas of what I wanted to do:
I wanted to flip D&D's reward mechanisms around; instead of killing monsters to accumulate XP, you start with a pool of doom points that the DM spends to send monsters after you and that you are trying to get rid of. I'm deliberately attaching this mechanic to the most combat-oriented edition of D&D to create tension. I'm interested in inversions, internal conflict, contrasts, and D&D's surreal "kitchen-sink" genre-transgression.
I'm still working to hammer this ridiculous thing into some kind of coherent shape, but I do so with a kind of ethos to guide me.

What is our ethos here? What are we really setting out to accomplish besides simply rewriting 4E D&D?

Dacia Brabant

2016-03-08, 09:50 AM

Well, I think we need to rear it back and come to a consensus on a simple mission statement or set of principles we can refer back to.
Otherwise we're just going to go back and forth arguing about how best to rename familiar concepts and how to fiddle with individual mechanics in isolation from everything else.

<snip>

What is our ethos here? What are we really setting out to accomplish besides simply rewriting 4E D&D?

That's fair. What I set out at the start was based on my perception of where the discussion from the previous thread had gone and what the general consensus appeared to be, but we've gotten a lot of new input here since then and it may be that the two-fold approach of Core+Extension doesn't represent where the group wants to go with this.

So, I guess let's start with the most fundamental question: Are we rebuilding 4E, or are we building a new system inspired by it? Please when answering this question, briefly state your reasons why you answered it the way you did.

UrielAwakened

2016-03-08, 11:27 AM

Ursus Spelaeus

2016-03-08, 04:58 PM

I am of the opinion that, to begin, we come up with a base class list we want to refine. I think we should start with the Cleric, the Fighter, the Wizard, and the Ranger. These are the four classes that were arguably the best at what they did in 4e, and they provide us with a firm foundation to compare what we want a class to be able to do. Sure, you can argue Warlords are better than Clerics or whatever but Cleric is the classic example of a "leader."

From there, we go over class features, decide what to change and what to keep. Then we make a list of four powers for each level, likely from the best powers available. We decide what to change, what stays the same.

We do the same with maybe 8 more classes. I would suggest we add Paladin, Druid, Bard, Warlock, Rogue, Sorcerer, Barbarian, and Warlord to the list of "base" classes.

Now, are we designing these classes "top down" or "bottom up" (to borrow Magic: the Gathering design terminology).
I mean, are we looking to build classes that capture the ideas of "fighter" and "wizard", or are we looking to first design classes that explore design spaces within the four roles (defender, striker, controller, leader) then flavor them to taste?

UrielAwakened

2016-03-08, 06:36 PM

Now, are we designing these classes "top down" or "bottom up" (to borrow Magic: the Gathering design terminology).
I mean, are we looking to build classes that capture the ideas of "fighter" and "wizard", or are we looking to first design classes that explore design spaces within the four roles (defender, striker, controller, leader) then flavor them to taste?

I think we first define what it means to be a "fighter" or "wizard," which 4e largely succeeded at but we can of course incorporate changes, then explore the design space within their role.

For instance, marks were a great way to ensure that a defender could actually "defend," but I would like to see ideas for the archetypes you see fitting into "Fighter." Bodyguard for instance, or expert with a variety of weapons. Watchman is another one that a Fighter should be able to fill. Speaking of which, Fighters will be able to take Perception as a trained skill, no exceptions. It's insane they don't have it on their class list.

The role system is good. Controller needs maybe a bit more of a niche but otherwise they all feel unique. Even within those roles each class mostly had a spin that was suited to itself. We could differentiate them even more in some cases. For instance, I think we drop Hunter's Quarry and just make the Ranger's striker feature Twin Strike since no at-will should be so good that every class takes it, and then proceeds to multiclass if they don't have it.

We also have the advantage of making the Paladin's Divine Challenge just work like Divine Sanction, as another example.

Dacia Brabant

2016-03-08, 08:12 PM

We are rebuilding 4e, but at the same time we shouldn't shackle ourselves to something because it's a D&D legacy holdover.

We SHOULD shackle ourselves to something because it was a major aspect of 4e. Things like powers, half-levels, consistent monster math, consistent encounter design, skill challenges (even if we revamp them to make them interesting, they should be included somewhere), healing surges, tactical combat, 10 + X defenses, simple saving throws, uniform enhancement bonuses, and class roles are all core parts of 4e and I can't see dropping any of them.

I agree with all of this, but I would also like to hear from Shimeran and ThePurple, who've both contributed a lot to the discussion. Is this something both of you could get behind?

Meanwhile, things like ability scores being used to calculate ability mods, rituals, basically everything Essentials added, etc... are all just holdovers that were used to make it feel more like D&D and I don't think we should leave any stone unturned in that respect.

Especially ability scores. The only one that ever matters is Con and we can easily adjust how base HP is calculated. Mods or bust. I guess there's also that weird rule where if you arm wrestle you just compare Strength scores but that really only serves to prove my point.

I agree with most of this, although I would submit that one idea from Essentials needs to be kept, and that's the idea of class builds. The way it was implemented however was garbage, I would throw it out and replace it with either feats for additional class features or with alternate class features, which could effectively allow for role-swapping.

And, maybe this is nostalgia talking, maybe it's my fondness for games that have it or maybe I'd just like to have something for people who want to be able to make characters quickly, but part of me would like to see an option for randomly generating characters. That wouldn't necessarily mean needing to keep ability scores though, just a way to have ability mods (or whatever we end up calling them) rolled up if people choose to do so.

I am of the opinion that, to begin, we come up with a base class list we want to refine. I think we should start with the Cleric, the Fighter, the Wizard, and the Ranger. These are the four classes that were arguably the best at what they did in 4e, and they provide us with a firm foundation to compare what we want a class to be able to do. Sure, you can argue Warlords are better than Clerics or whatever but Cleric is the classic example of a "leader."

From there, we go over class features, decide what to change and what to keep. Then we make a list of four powers for each level, likely from the best powers available. We decide what to change, what stays the same.

We do the same with maybe 8 more classes. I would suggest we add Paladin, Druid, Bard, Warlock, Rogue, Sorcerer, Barbarian, and Warlord to the list of "base" classes.

I agree with this, too, though I would like to push for Berserker over Barbarian as that would give us a third defender option. So we would end up with something like this:

Martial Heroes: Fighter, Warlord, Rogue.
Primal Heroes: Berserker, Druid, Ranger (yes, I know, they're martial right now, but they're supposed to be into nature).
Heroes of Lore: Bard, Wizard, Sorcerer.
Heroes of Faith: Paladin, Cleric, Warlock (and yes, I know, they're arcane right now, but their powers come from extraplanar beings).

ThePurple

2016-03-08, 08:43 PM

I think we first define what it means to be a "fighter" or "wizard," which 4e largely succeeded at but we can of course incorporate changes, then explore the design space within their role.

The problem with both of those terms is that "fighter" and "wizard" both encompass widely disparate archetypes that operate within different roles.

A "fighter" could, honestly, be any role because "fighter" is just a D&D catch-all term for the guy in (not always but generally) heavy armor that fights purely with skill (even warlord is just a leader role fighter). Even based on D&D's historical precedents, a "wizard" doesn't work within the confines of a single role because they have always been toolbox type characters (just look at the difference between an evoker, a conjurer, a abjurer, etc.).

On the subject of wizards, I strongly believe that we need to separate the "controller" role from the "artillery" role. The only reason that I can fathom that controller and artillery got folded together in 4e was because they wanted wizards to have a single role while still being able to do pretty much anything like they had historically been able to do. It also created the problem that, unlike every other role, controllers didn't have any mechanical aspect about their role that actually made them unique (e.g. leaders all had a healing word equivalent, defenders had a mark and a retributive effect, strikers had bonus damage); they were the only role entirely governed by their power selection because they couldn't really come up with any other way to make wizards unique beyond that.

Controllers should have some role-driven mechanic that makes them better at controlling their foes (one of the main ideas I've had is giving them some encounter resource restricted mechanism that allows them to force targets to reroll passed saving throws or penalties to the first saving throw, much like what orb wizards get), and, similarly, the artillery role should have some role-driven mechanic (not just power selection) that makes them more effective at AoE combat (like a bonus to damage rolls for each additional target hit by an attack or automatic splash damage when using single target attacks).

As such, if we're going to be going with the name "fighter", we need to make separate classes for each role that is designed specifically to fulfill that one role (or, as I suggest later, role combination). A defender fighter, a striker fighter, a leader fighter, and a controller fighter (what a polearm fighter really tried to be) should not all be built on the same chassis, unless you're specifically designing that chassis to allow for changing roles (which means that you have to start with fluid design as part of your concept when coming up with that chassis in the first place).

As I've said before, my favorite class from 4e was the berserker barbarian because it was a class that was designed to fulfill multiple roles but only be able to access a single one at a time, and, as stated earlier on in this post, most of the traditional archetypes for fantasy fulfill more than one of the roles that 4e uses (striker, leader, defender, artillery, controller). I'd like for us to try and design each class such that it can actually fulfill multiple roles in much the same way that berserker does.

In my own homebrew rebuild of 4e, I split the fighter archetype into 3 separate classes: the fighter (striker/artillery; the artillery is basically using the idea of cleaving blows to strike multiple targets), the warrior (defender/leader), and the armsman (controller/striker). Something else I also did was separate the idea that a ranged ranger, a melee ranger, and beastmaster should be the same class and instead folded the melee ranger archetype into the fighter (fighter allowed for either two-weapon or two-handed fighting), created a separate classes for ranged rangers (I called it "hunter" because it made more sense to me and made it artillery/controller) and beastmaster rangers (interestingly enough, called "beastmaster" and made it striker/leader).

Finally, I know that Uriel responded to it, but how does everyone else feel about making power source more important by using it to provide a more cohesive central design principle to each class within that power source?

We also have the advantage of making the Paladin's Divine Challenge just work like Divine Sanction, as another example.

All defenders should operate purely off of the "marked" condition (or whatever we're gonna call it). Giving paladin a unique name for their version of "marked" was just kinda dumb.

Another note about the "marked" condition, it's been a houserule of mine for a while that a target can be marked by any number of targets, and that, while marked, you take a -2 penalty when attacking a target that does not have you marked. Furthermore, all defender retributive effects trigger similarly (ex: if two fighters have the same target marked, the target takes a -2 penalty when making an attack that doesn't include at least one of them in it and only incurs the retributive attacks of the fighters when making an attack that doesn't include at least one of them in it). This way, multiple defenders don't end up stepping on each others' toes (by overwriting each others' marks) nearly as much.

While Essentials tends to get a pretty bad rap, I actually think what they did for defenders (aura that marks and simple but power that does retribution) was a dramatic improvement over their initial design (unique marking mechanism for each class that caused all kinds of disparity in performance and actual effectiveness as a defender combined with ever more increasingly complicated retributive mechanisms). I also like how they made the defender retributive powers opportunity actions rather than immediate actions, so that defenders were actually a threat every turn instead of only until they actually did something.

ThePurple

2016-03-08, 09:01 PM

Martial Heroes: Fighter, Warlord, Rogue.

This leaves out the traditional archer archetypes, unless you want to make them a variety of rogue or fighter, which doesn't really jive with the entire slew of other archetypes for those classes.

Primal Heroes: Berserker, Druid, Ranger (yes, I know, they're martial right now, but they're supposed to be into nature).

I have a problem with having a single "druid" class for much the same reason that I have a problem with having a single "wizard" class. Druids have always had massive toolboxes that make it very problematic to design a single one that does everything without losing the flavor of what it means to be a druid. For example, druids have traditionally been able to shapeshift (which is kind of defender/striker in my eyes), throw out spells with weather (generally artillery and control) and plant/growth (generally healer and control) themes, and summon animals/have animal companions (both of which are very leader).

I think it would be better to split up the capabilities of druids such that we isolate beastmaster druids (which summon animals and have permanent animal companions), spellcaster druids (which control weather and plant growth), and shapeshifter druids (which are exactly what it says on the label). Beastmasters would probably be striker/leader, spellcasters artillery/controller, and shapeshifters controller/defender (leaving the striker/defender combination to barbarians).

Heroes of Faith: Paladin, Cleric, Warlock (and yes, I know, they're arcane right now, but their powers come from extraplanar beings).

I don't really agree with warlocks being heroes of faith for a couple reasons. Thematically, warlocks are in conflict with the other divine power source classes because warlocks have made pacts with various powerful beings in order to gain power whereas divine characters have been invested with said power because of their devotion (so it's like the difference between a purchase and a donation), not to mention that you're also basically saying that the gods are not appreciably different from demon lords, the fey, and other similarly nasty and strange beasties.

I actually rather like warlocks as arcane and would prefer we keep them there.

On the other hand, if we need more than just paladin and cleric for the divine power source, I think it would be better to add a lightly armored "priest" class (basically creating an explicit mechanical disconnect between melee clerics and ranged clerics by shunting the ranged-spellcaster cleric stuff to a separate class) rather than trying to co-opt a class of a different power source that has a significantly different feel.

Shimeran

2016-03-08, 09:10 PM

What is our ethos here? What are we really setting out to accomplish besides simply rewriting 4E D&D?

My understanding is we're looking for a 4e-alike, close enough to act as a replacement and scratch the same itches. At least part of the purpose being to provide a comparable game under a more open licence so it can continue to grow with community support rather than stagnating under it's current licence.

So, I guess let's start with the most fundamental question: Are we rebuilding 4E, or are we building a new system inspired by it? Please when answering this question, briefly state your reasons why you answered it the way you did.

Well what my preference is for a system that's build around the most enjoyable features of 4e while being willing to shed things that play against it's strengths.

Having said my piece, I believe we had a somewhat similar question earlier in the thread. If I recall right, answers hovered around 30 on a scale where 0 was a strict clone and 100 was a largely original work.

We SHOULD shackle ourselves to something because it was a major aspect of 4e. Things like powers, half-levels, consistent monster math, consistent encounter design, skill challenges (even if we revamp them to make them interesting, they should be included somewhere), healing surges, tactical combat, 10 + X defenses, simple saving throws, uniform enhancement bonuses, and class roles are all core parts of 4e and I can't see dropping any of them.

Meanwhile, things like ability scores being used to calculate ability mods, rituals, basically everything Essentials added, etc... are all just holdovers that were used to make it feel more like D&D and I don't think we should leave any stone unturned in that respect.

I'm more interested in keeping to the spirit of the system's distinctive features. I'm a bit vaguer on exactly where you're drawing the line at major features. For example, I'd agree with the intent of skill challenges if not how they were executed. However, I don't know why rituals didn't make the cut as to me they're at least as distinctive a feature of 4e as said challenges.

I also care less about copying the exact number and mechanics, provided they feel close enough in play. For example, changing the scaling on monster math wouldn't be make or break for me, provided higher tier monsters stay suitably impressive.

I guess it can be summed up as me having no problem porting over the bits that work, but no desire to leave a bit unexamined and unrefined simply because that's how 4e did it. That way lie the sacred cattle.

Now, are we designing these classes "top down" or "bottom up" (to borrow Magic: the Gathering design terminology).
I mean, are we looking to build classes that capture the ideas of "fighter" and "wizard", or are we looking to first design classes that explore design spaces within the four roles (defender, striker, controller, leader) then flavor them to taste?

I believe I've gone on record as wanting to use broader character archetypes as bases and roles as specialization of those archetypes. Whether those broader stroke versions are classes or not is less of issue, but I like the layered approach as things like say a controller rogue or an artillerist wizard have definite appeal.

Ursus Spelaeus

2016-03-08, 09:57 PM

It helps to remind oneself of one's priorities. :)

Okay, so let's break this down into its component parts.

We are designing a game five to six players including one "dungeon master" player.
The dungeon master controls monsters and is primarily in charge of adjudicating the rules.
The other players each control a single heroic character.

The goal of the game is to generate an emergent narrative through tactical set-piece combat.
The heroic players must each fill a particular role and work together as a group to defeat monsters set against them by the dungeon master so that they can accumulate gold and experience points so that they may fight increasingly powerful monsters. At level 30 they fight one final monster, usually a god or demon lord, and conclude the narrative.
(What is the dungeon master's goal in this game?)

The game is structured into an overarching campaign from levels 1-30 divided into (usually weekly) game sessions. The heroes are meant to gain a level roughly every [n] game sessions. (What is the value of n?)

The first game session is used for character creation. The heroic players work together to create one character each filling one of the four roles. Each character has:
A level (starts at one, is added to rolls)
A character class (each character class is associated with at least one role)
Ability scores (added to rolls)
Skills (also added to rolls)
Defenses (derived from abilities, and used target numbers for attack rolls against the character)
Hit Points (ablated by successful attacks)
Healing Surges (a resource spent to recover hit points)
Powers (resources typically used as part of attack rolls in combat)
Feats (passive effects modifying other parts of the character)
Equipment (miscellaneous effects and resources modifying other parts of the character)
A narrative description

Each following session is divided up into a number of encounters of one of three types: a combat encounter, a roleplaying encounter (also known as a rest), or a skill challenge encounter.

Encounters are broken up into rounds where each character (heroic or DM controlled) takes a turn wherein they perform actions.

Most actions are resolved by rolling 1d20 + adjustments. If the roll is equal to a given target number or greater, the action is successful.

Combat encounters are resolved by reducing the opposing sides pool of 'hit points' to zero. Hit points are reduced by successful attack rolls against the target's defenses.
Combat encounters are complicated by *four* factors:
1) Positioning. The success of attack rolls is dependent the positioning of one's character token relative to the target character's token on a gridded mat (range), relative to obstacles (cover and concealment), and relative to one's allies (flanking). Players aim to maximize their odds of success and minimize the monster's odds off success through advantageous positioning on the grid.
2) Condition. Characters can be placed in a variety of states called conditions such as 'prone' or 'dazed' that apply modifiers to rolls.
3) Resource Management. Characters have limited resources including 'daily' and 'encounter' powers which may be spent in order to improve their positioning, apply conditions to targets, affect odds of success, and increase damage.
4) Action Economy. Characters may perform a limited number of attack rolls and movements per round.

Roleplaying encounters are generally used to build narrative, refresh resources spent in previous encounters, and prepare for the following encounters.

Skill challenges are, thus far, a matter of debate as to how they should best be conducted.

Dacia Brabant

2016-03-09, 01:13 AM

The problem with both of those terms is that "fighter" and "wizard" both encompass widely disparate archetypes that operate within different roles.

A "fighter" could, honestly, be any role because "fighter" is just a D&D catch-all term for the guy in (not always but generally) heavy armor that fights purely with skill (even warlord is just a leader role fighter). Even based on D&D's historical precedents, a "wizard" doesn't work within the confines of a single role because they have always been toolbox type characters (just look at the difference between an evoker, a conjurer, a abjurer, etc.).

That's valid. For my part, I would like to see the core or base classes have a default role, with other roles achieved through alternate builds/archetypes. A "Fighter" being the sword-and-boarder who holds the monsters' attention away from her friends through a mix of intimidation and absorbtion/deflection of attacks is primarily a defender (or soldier if we're going with the same roles as monsters); if instead she became a "Swashbuckler" (a Fighter with striker or skirmisher features/riders on powers), she might still be able to do that, but if she does it's because she moves all over the battlefield dealing big damage precisely where it's needed. I can see how the same could be said of a "Warlord" (a Fighter with leader features) or an "Archer" (an artillery/ranged striker Fighter); I would struggle to see the same with a controller Fighter, however, as I've long been of the opinion that defenders are melee controllers.

On the subject of wizards, I strongly believe that we need to separate the "controller" role from the "artillery" role. The only reason that I can fathom that controller and artillery got folded together in 4e was because they wanted wizards to have a single role while still being able to do pretty much anything like they had historically been able to do. It also created the problem that, unlike every other role, controllers didn't have any mechanical aspect about their role that actually made them unique (e.g. leaders all had a healing word equivalent, defenders had a mark and a retributive effect, strikers had bonus damage); they were the only role entirely governed by their power selection because they couldn't really come up with any other way to make wizards unique beyond that.

Well they're not called Wizards of the Coast for nothing. :smalltongue:

Jokes aside, I basically agree, but I'm not sure what the fundamental difference is between artillery and striker apart from AoE vs. single target. They strike me (no pun intended) as fulfilling the same purpose--to kill things dead--albeit in different ways that are suitable for specific types of threats. Is that enough to make for distinct roles?

Controllers should have some role-driven mechanic that makes them better at controlling their foes (one of the main ideas I've had is giving them some encounter resource restricted mechanism that allows them to force targets to reroll passed saving throws or penalties to the first saving throw, much like what orb wizards get), and, similarly, the artillery role should have some role-driven mechanic (not just power selection) that makes them more effective at AoE combat (like a bonus to damage rolls for each additional target hit by an attack or automatic splash damage when using single target attacks).

I like this a lot.

As such, if we're going to be going with the name "fighter", we need to make separate classes for each role that is designed specifically to fulfill that one role (or, as I suggest later, role combination). A defender fighter, a striker fighter, a leader fighter, and a controller fighter (what a polearm fighter really tried to be) should not all be built on the same chassis, unless you're specifically designing that chassis to allow for changing roles (which means that you have to start with fluid design as part of your concept when coming up with that chassis in the first place).

I think design fluidity is important in this type of game where roles and party balance are essential. Creating entire classes for each role under the umbrella of a single archetype seems to me at once very broad and very narrow from a design standpoint, and restrictive from a player's perspective. If I'm in a long-running game with a character I like, but we add a player who really wants to fill the same role--or say we have duplication in my role, but we lose a player whose character was the only one filling another role--it would sure be great to "retrain" that character (via different features or power selections) to be able to fill that need rather than going back and looking for a different class.

As I've said before, my favorite class from 4e was the berserker barbarian because it was a class that was designed to fulfill multiple roles but only be able to access a single one at a time, and, as stated earlier on in this post, most of the traditional archetypes for fantasy fulfill more than one of the roles that 4e uses (striker, leader, defender, artillery, controller). I'd like for us to try and design each class such that it can actually fulfill multiple roles in much the same way that berserker does.

I agree with this.

Finally, I know that Uriel responded to it, but how does everyone else feel about making power source more important by using it to provide a more cohesive central design principle to each class within that power source?

I like the sound of that, but could you give an example of how that might look? Right now the only thing I can think of in the game that even approaches that is divine characters getting Channel Divinity powers. Would it be more things like that?

All defenders should operate purely off of the "marked" condition (or whatever we're gonna call it). Giving paladin a unique name for their version of "marked" was just kinda dumb.

Another note about the "marked" condition, it's been a houserule of mine for a while that a target can be marked by any number of targets, and that, while marked, you take a -2 penalty when attacking a target that does not have you marked. Furthermore, all defender retributive effects trigger similarly (ex: if two fighters have the same target marked, the target takes a -2 penalty when making an attack that doesn't include at least one of them in it and only incurs the retributive attacks of the fighters when making an attack that doesn't include at least one of them in it). This way, multiple defenders don't end up stepping on each others' toes (by overwriting each others' marks) nearly as much.

While Essentials tends to get a pretty bad rap, I actually think what they did for defenders (aura that marks and simple but power that does retribution) was a dramatic improvement over their initial design (unique marking mechanism for each class that caused all kinds of disparity in performance and actual effectiveness as a defender combined with ever more increasingly complicated retributive mechanisms). I also like how they made the defender retributive powers opportunity actions rather than immediate actions, so that defenders were actually a threat every turn instead of only until they actually did something.

I agree with almost all of this, especially marks not superceding each other and mark punishment being an OA. I'm not sure I agree though that they should all have the same name or the same design for that matter. Swordmages being skirmisher-style defenders makes a lot sense considering they're running around in light/no armor (except my Swordmage|Cleric, but that was a special case), whereas auras make more sense for Paladins--well, Cavaliers--due to their being faith-driven than they do for Fighters, who threaten just by how well they swing a sword around. I guess that could be an aura, too, in its own way though.

This leaves out the traditional archer archetypes, unless you want to make them a variety of rogue or fighter, which doesn't really jive with the entire slew of other archetypes for those classes.

I was thinking it would fit either as Rogue or Warlord--Robin Hood and Odysseus, two definitive archers of legend, could fit the bill as either quite easily--but if Warlord were to become a subset of Fighter then I suppose Archer could do the same. An Archer Fighter might focus on mounted archery or on heavy artillery, while an Archer Rogue might focus on sniping, close-quarters/short-range archery or ranged weapons that are easily hidden.

I have a problem with having a single "druid" class for much the same reason that I have a problem with having a single "wizard" class. Druids have always had massive toolboxes that make it very problematic to design a single one that does everything without losing the flavor of what it means to be a druid. For example, druids have traditionally been able to shapeshift (which is kind of defender/striker in my eyes), throw out spells with weather (generally artillery and control) and plant/growth (generally healer and control) themes, and summon animals/have animal companions (both of which are very leader).

I think it would be better to split up the capabilities of druids such that we isolate beastmaster druids (which summon animals and have permanent animal companions), spellcaster druids (which control weather and plant growth), and shapeshifter druids (which are exactly what it says on the label). Beastmasters would probably be striker/leader, spellcasters artillery/controller, and shapeshifters controller/defender (leaving the striker/defender combination to barbarians).

I hear you, but I feel that this could be achieved through ACFs and power options--possibly power trees, if that's not too video-gamey for people. Say you take a shapeshifter at-will, maybe that opens up shapeshifter encounter/utility/daily powers, or the same if you take a summoner at-will or a healer at-will.

I don't really agree with warlocks being heroes of faith for a couple reasons. Thematically, warlocks are in conflict with the other divine power source classes because warlocks have made pacts with various powerful beings in order to gain power whereas divine characters have been invested with said power because of their devotion (so it's like the difference between a purchase and a donation), not to mention that you're also basically saying that the gods are not appreciably different from demon lords, the fey, and other similarly nasty and strange beasties.

I actually rather like warlocks as arcane and would prefer we keep them there.

Yeah I was just kind of throwing that out there, and I figured it would get some pushback. With that said, it does kind of make sense if you consider that guys like Graz'zt, Mephistopheles, Caiphonthulhu, the Prince of Frost and the Sorcerer King are all basically gods by other names, while Vestiges are for all intents and purposes the remains of dead gods, but YMMV and, being that Warlock is my favorite class in the game by far, I don't want to propose anything that would take away from what it fundamentally is.

Still, that leaves us with 4 Arcane and 2 Divine.

On the other hand, if we need more than just paladin and cleric for the divine power source, I think it would be better to add a lightly armored "priest" class (basically creating an explicit mechanical disconnect between melee clerics and ranged clerics by shunting the ranged-spellcaster cleric stuff to a separate class) rather than trying to co-opt a class of a different power source that has a significantly different feel.

I don't disagree with this, but I'd kind of like to see something like the Cloistered Cleric or Archivist come back as a Cleric archetype rather than as a separate class that's still priestly. Then again, if Paladins are the soldiers of the faith and Clerics are the speakers of the faith, maybe what we need are the scholars of the faith as the third divine class, and that could very well be it.

Still leaves us with 4 Arcane classes.

My understanding is we're looking for a 4e-alike, close enough to act as a replacement and scratch the same itches. At least part of the purpose being to provide a comparable game under a more open licence so it can continue to grow with community support rather than stagnating under it's current licence.

Well what my preference is for a system that's build around the most enjoyable features of 4e while being willing to shed things that play against it's strengths.

Having said my piece, I believe we had a somewhat similar question earlier in the thread. If I recall right, answers hovered around 30 on a scale where 0 was a strict clone and 100 was a largely original work.

Thumbs up on all of this, and FWIW I think restating some of this stuff has gotten us back on track.

I'm more interested in keeping to the spirit of the system's distinctive features. I'm a bit vaguer on exactly where you're drawing the line at major features. For example, I'd agree with the intent of skill challenges if not how they were executed. However, I don't know why rituals didn't make the cut as to me they're at least as distinctive a feature of 4e as said challenges.

I agree that rituals--in the sense of spells that don't fit the scope of tactical gaming--should be part of the game. How they'll be included is an altogether different matter and will probably be the subject of much discussion, as will skill challenges.

I believe I've gone on record as wanting to use broader character archetypes as bases and roles as specialization of those archetypes. Whether those broader stroke versions are classes or not is less of issue, but I like the layered approach as things like say a controller rogue or an artillerist wizard have definite appeal.

I agree, I think that moving from the general to the specific is the way to go.

It helps to remind oneself of one's priorities. :)

Okay, so let's break this down into its component parts.

<giant snip>

An excellent summation of the scope of gameplay, well said.

Ursus Spelaeus

2016-03-09, 01:35 AM

Now, I have an idea I would like to run by you guys:

What if we incorporate the grid into skill challenges?

The GM draws a matrix with two axis:
Gainful outcome vs. Destructive outcome
Lawful outcome vs. Chaotic outcome

Each space on the matrix represents a possibility.

The GM then sets a token on the matrix to represent the situation as it currently stands.
The players get a given number of rounds to roll skill checks. Successful skill checks can be used to shift the situation up, down, left, or right toward the desired outcome. Failures may mean that the situation shifts in toward an undesirable outcome.
Skill checks can also place or remove obstacles in order to close off or open up possibilities.

After the given number of rounds, resolve the skill challenge according to which outcome the situation is closest to or which possibility space the situation ends up in.

What do you think?

Bruno Carvalho

2016-03-09, 06:07 AM

About the "what classes to put on core" question:

I think we should go first designing the mechanics then reflavor it to fit. I feel that many classes have a definite "secondary" role in it (as in the Bard vs the Warlord - both are leaders, though the Bard is more controllery and the Warlord feels more strikery). I think we should use that to our favor and decide the "core" classes with that in mind.

In other words, we should have the following classes

Defenders:
Defender/Striker (like the two handed Fighter was)
Defender/Leader (Paladin fits the bill)
Defender/Controller (as the Polearm Fighter and some Swordmages were)

Strikers:
Striker/Defender (some Ranger and some Avenger builds could do damage while not dying so easily)
Striker/Leader ( his "leadery" aspects would be focused on buffs and damage, not healing)
Striker/Controller (Sorcerer - the AOE striker)

Leaders:
Leader/Defender (armored Cleric fits the bill)
Leader/Striker (like most Warlord were)
Leader/Controller (Classic Bard stuff)

Controllers:
Controller/Defender (the role the Druid tried to fit)
Controller/Leader (the Invoker can do it)
Controller/Striker (the Wizard was a bit overboard with this, but this was its intention)

UrielAwakened

2016-03-09, 10:09 AM

I agree with this. I would maybe change some of the class role/subrole parings, however. Maybe even just use them as "informed" guidelines, or class paths, and not necessarily hard-and-fast rules. We shouldn't be pushing square pegs through round holes. Does a two-weapon Ranger really fit a subcategory of any of those? I don't think so. It's more a pure striker than anything else, but we shouldn't exclude it for that reason.

We should think about what classes give the most unique identifies, and what would be most evocative of the style we're aiming for. My alternate idea, therefore, is rather than forcing classes into this design space of Main role/sub role, we instead use Main role as the class role, and then the sub role is informed by the power source.

Martial - Striker
Divine - Leader
Arcane - Controller
Primal - Defender

I would argue that 4e already basically configures to this design schema. Fighters and Warlords are heavily sub-striker, Paladins and Invokers are heavily sub-leader, Bards, Sorcerers, and Swordmages are very controller-heavy, and Shamans and Druids have a decidedly defender focus.

We then make sure to round out power-levels with a supplement of those types of features as well as whatever is being provided by the main class feature. This gives our power sources more uniqueness than they might otherwise have. You'll notice I have purposely left out Shadow. It was poorly executed and I think we largely need to ignore it until we're further along. If there's design space for it somewhere, great, but otherwise I'm not overly concerned by it. If we assume that Striker is akin to Artillery, Controller is 1:1, Leader is 1:1, and Defenders are basically Soldiers, then Shadow almost seems it would fit the "Lurker" subtype, which doesn't really play well from a PC perspective. I imagine Shadow classes playing similar to Rogues on steroids, which the Assassin tried to do but failed. You'd do very little for a few rounds, and then have a huge nova thanks to set-up.

How do we feel about using different Wizard "Specializations" as their class paths, rather than implement masteries? Things like Transmuter, Evoker, Illusionist, and maybe one other as the base paths?

ThePurple

2016-03-09, 03:38 PM

Jokes aside, I basically agree, but I'm not sure what the fundamental difference is between artillery and striker apart from AoE vs. single target. They strike me (no pun intended) as fulfilling the same purpose--to kill things dead--albeit in different ways that are suitable for specific types of threats. Is that enough to make for distinct roles?

I don't think that artillery can really work as a truly distinct role separate from striker unless we decide to go into the "all classes get 2+ roles", so that an artillery character can swap out of that role when they're down to a single (or small number of spread out) target. Otherwise, I would probably fold the artillery role under the striker umbrella, and basically treat "striker" as any pure damage driven role.

I think design fluidity is important in this type of game where roles and party balance are essential. Creating entire classes for each role under the umbrella of a single archetype seems to me at once very broad and very narrow from a design standpoint, and restrictive from a player's perspective. If I'm in a long-running game with a character I like, but we add a player who really wants to fill the same role--or say we have duplication in my role, but we lose a player whose character was the only one filling another role--it would sure be great to "retrain" that character (via different features or power selections) to be able to fill that need rather than going back and looking for a different class.

The problem with extreme levels of retraining (e.g. going from a 2 weapon striker fighter to a polearm controller fighter) is that they break with what I consider to be a desirable level of verisimilitude. It just doesn't make sense for someone who specializes in a given fighting style to suddenly change to a completely different one (without resorting to GM fiat).

This is one of the advantages of going with a berserker-style dual role set up for each class since it allows each class to fulfill two different roles with the same selection. Sure, you might have chosen feats and gear that makes you better at one role, but you've still got the fundamental underlying functionality that lets you fulfill the other role.

I like the sound of that, but could you give an example of how that might look? Right now the only thing I can think of in the game that even approaches that is divine characters getting Channel Divinity powers. Would it be more things like that?

Earlier on in this thread, I described the method I envisage for doing this, which is comprised of 2 parts.

The first part is to do away with class based utility power lists and replace them with power source utility lists so that all martial characters draw from the same list of utility powers, all arcane characters draw from the same list of utility powers, etc.

The second part would be to come up with an overarching mechanical paradigm for all classes within a given power source to operate under. The two examples that I gave were for the martial and divine power sources. For martial classes, they would have different effects of their powers depending upon what weapon they are using (not as a selected class feature, but as a tactical choice determined during combat so that martial characters actually have a reason to carry different weapons). I would be much like baking the "XXX Strike" feats into the classes (so a flail fighter would be able to slide and knock prone, but a hammer fighter would push and daze; a mace rogue would be able to daze whereas a dagger rogue would be able to deal ongoing damage). For divine characters, we follow a similar paradigm such that the secondary effects and damage types of their powers are determined by their choice of god, much like the devoted warpriest (except we generalize the gods rather than creating separate set ups for every single different god). With this, we'd have clerics *and* paladins of storm deities dealing lightning and thunder damage, and those of deities of corruption dealing necrotic and poison damage, which makes a lot more sense than all paladins and clerics dealing radiant damage with a vast majority of their attacks.

Swordmages being skirmisher-style defenders makes a lot sense considering they're running around in light/no armor (except my Swordmage|Cleric, but that was a special case)

Swordmages always felt to me like an aberration in design that never really worked like it was supposed to. Swordmages worked best when they were running away from or out of the range of the individual they were marking, which was the exact reason why Divine Challenge was given so many restrictions (namely, that a defender shouldn't be running away from the individual they're supposed to be threatening). Swordmage also isn't really a particularly well developed archetype. Arcane knights in fantasy tend to be heavily armored, basically paladins with an arcane power source and more esoteric abilities. Swordmage is basically a class designed for Forgotten Realms much like Artificer is a class designed for Eberron, as opposed to actually fulfilling an established fantasy archetype.

whereas auras make more sense for Paladins--well, Cavaliers--due to their being faith-driven than they do for Fighters, who threaten just by how well they swing a sword around. I guess that could be an aura, too, in its own way though.

An aura doesn't have to be magical. It's just a word we use to indicate a mechanic representing an area of influence that the character has.

I don't disagree with this, but I'd kind of like to see something like the Cloistered Cleric or Archivist come back as a Cleric archetype rather than as a separate class that's still priestly. Then again, if Paladins are the soldiers of the faith and Clerics are the speakers of the faith, maybe what we need are the scholars of the faith as the third divine class, and that could very well be it.

I've played around with designing a cloistered cleric in the past, but I've always come up against the problem that a light armored ranged cleric is fundamentally at odds with a heavy armored melee cleric, since a ranged cleric should be decked out more like a wizard whereas a melee cleric should be decked out more like a fighter. It requires so many changes that you might as well just create a separate class for it.

Now, I have an idea I would like to run by you guys:

What do you think?

I'm not fond of it because I think it's too abstract. Skill Challenges are supposed to represent non-combat equivalents of conflict resolution (e.g. stuff that rewards xp and loot) and that framework is a bit too vague. It could work in a much less crunch-driven game, but I don't think it would work for 4e.

I still support my idea of making skill checks and challenges use the exact same mechanics as combat (e.g. player makes skill check to reach DC of check and then roll "damage" die to determine number of successes; skill challenge ends when players achieve required number of successes or failed to achieve enough successes before a given number of rounds).

I think we should go first designing the mechanics then reflavor it to fit. I feel that many classes have a definite "secondary" role in it (as in the Bard vs the Warlord - both are leaders, though the Bard is more controllery and the Warlord feels more strikery). I think we should use that to our favor and decide the "core" classes with that in mind.

4e already tried to do that, and it didn't work out.

We should think about what classes give the most unique identifies, and what would be most evocative of the style we're aiming for. My alternate idea, therefore, is rather than forcing classes into this design space of Main role/sub role, we instead use Main role as the class role, and then the sub role is informed by the power source.

This is largely what I was aiming to do with my previously mentioned consolidation of utility powers under the umbrella of power source. Divine utility powers would include stuff like Bless and Cure Light Wounds/Lay On Hands (leader). Martial utility powers would give plenty of mobility (striker). Arcane utility powers would include stuff like Stoneskin and Shield (defender). Primal utility powers would include stuff like Rampant Growth (controller).

How do we feel about using different Wizard "Specializations" as their class paths, rather than implement masteries? Things like Transmuter, Evoker, Illusionist, and maybe one other as the base paths?

My most recent iteration of wizard is actually built around the schools of magic as a fundamental mechanic. When they roll initiative, a wizard chooses which of their schools of magic they're going to access (they get to select 2 at level 1 and additional schools as they increase in level). Each school of magic has a class feature (that allows for the expenditure of a unique class resource for bonus effects), 2 at-wills, and 2 encounter powers that the wizard can use while accessing that school of magic. The wizard would be able to change which school of magic they are accessing by using a standard action (or expending one charge of their unique class resource to do so as a minor action). I would probably include a paragon path that allowed a wizard to access two schools of magic simultaneously and others that focused on improving a single school of magic.

Because the schools of magic would determine powers (except for daily powers) and class features for the wizard, each school of magic can also give the wizard a different role. Accessing evocation would turn the wizard into an artillery. Illusion and enchantment would be controller. Abjuration would be leader (with the requisite leader-healing accomplished by having the wizard expend their unique resource to heal allies). Transmutation would be striker (I imagine a transmuter doing stuff like changing their implement into a weapon and using Tenser's Transformation to let them beat enemies to death rather than blasting them with spells).

I would probably isolate conjuration and necromancy to their own, separate, wizard archetype since those are more pet driven classes than normal wizards (probably call it conjurer and allow the player to choose between celestial, infernal, and necromantic summoning).

Dacia Brabant

2016-03-09, 08:20 PM

I don't think that artillery can really work as a truly distinct role separate from striker unless we decide to go into the "all classes get 2+ roles", so that an artillery character can swap out of that role when they're down to a single (or small number of spread out) target. Otherwise, I would probably fold the artillery role under the striker umbrella, and basically treat "striker" as any pure damage driven role.

I actually like that idea of having strikers be able to switch between single- and multi-target attack features. If your role is to deal as much damage as possible, it makes sense that you would want to have something up your sleeves for one tough mob and for a bunch of weaker ones.

The problem with extreme levels of retraining (e.g. going from a 2 weapon striker fighter to a polearm controller fighter) is that they break with what I consider to be a desirable level of verisimilitude. It just doesn't make sense for someone who specializes in a given fighting style to suddenly change to a completely different one (without resorting to GM fiat).

This is one of the advantages of going with a berserker-style dual role set up for each class since it allows each class to fulfill two different roles with the same selection. Sure, you might have chosen feats and gear that makes you better at one role, but you've still got the fundamental underlying functionality that lets you fulfill the other role.

I hear you on this, though I'm not sure I agree that it breaks verisimilitude to have a Fighter--someone who even at level 1 is beyond merely a professional man-at-arms--switch from sword-and-board to a zweihander or rapier and dagger, depending on the situation.

But I do like the design of the Berserker quite a lot, so I'm with you there.

Earlier on in this thread, I described the method I envisage for doing this, which is comprised of 2 parts.

The first part is to do away with class based utility power lists and replace them with power source utility lists so that all martial characters draw from the same list of utility powers, all arcane characters draw from the same list of utility powers, etc.

The second part would be to come up with an overarching mechanical paradigm for all classes within a given power source to operate under. The two examples that I gave were for the martial and divine power sources. For martial classes, they would have different effects of their powers depending upon what weapon they are using (not as a selected class feature, but as a tactical choice determined during combat so that martial characters actually have a reason to carry different weapons). I would be much like baking the "XXX Strike" feats into the classes (so a flail fighter would be able to slide and knock prone, but a hammer fighter would push and daze; a mace rogue would be able to daze whereas a dagger rogue would be able to deal ongoing damage). For divine characters, we follow a similar paradigm such that the secondary effects and damage types of their powers are determined by their choice of god, much like the devoted warpriest (except we generalize the gods rather than creating separate set ups for every single different god). With this, we'd have clerics *and* paladins of storm deities dealing lightning and thunder damage, and those of deities of corruption dealing necrotic and poison damage, which makes a lot more sense than all paladins and clerics dealing radiant damage with a vast majority of their attacks.

My apologies, I remember that now. We've covered so much ground in just over 7 pages, it can be hard to keep track. I like those ideas a lot, I think they would go a long way toward making the power sources actually mean something.

Arcane might be difficult to forge a common link between the classes, however, since they each have very different approaches to obtaining and using arcane power: Wizards through intense study, Warlocks through eldritch pacts, Sorcerers through blood magic and Bards through...the Power of Rockin' Out, I guess. :smalltongue:

Swordmages always felt to me like an aberration in design that never really worked like it was supposed to. Swordmages worked best when they were running away from or out of the range of the individual they were marking, which was the exact reason why Divine Challenge was given so many restrictions (namely, that a defender shouldn't be running away from the individual they're supposed to be threatening). Swordmage also isn't really a particularly well developed archetype. Arcane knights in fantasy tend to be heavily armored, basically paladins with an arcane power source and more esoteric abilities. Swordmage is basically a class designed for Forgotten Realms much like Artificer is a class designed for Eberron, as opposed to actually fulfilling an established fantasy archetype.

That's a fair criticism of the mechanics of the class, though in my experience I've found that with healthy use of sticky attack powers (Booming Blade, Frigid Blade, etc.) I could effectively defend against mobs on different sides of the battlefield, making for some very nice melee control.

On the strength of the archetype, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I've played around with designing a cloistered cleric in the past, but I've always come up against the problem that a light armored ranged cleric is fundamentally at odds with a heavy armored melee cleric, since a ranged cleric should be decked out more like a wizard whereas a melee cleric should be decked out more like a fighter. It requires so many changes that you might as well just create a separate class for it.

I don't doubt that you're right about this, though it kind of sounds like part of the difficulty has to do with the way the system relies on gear, as well as not receiving any mechanical benefit from their class for having a high Int or Dex.

Still, a Priest does connote something very different from say a Templar, which also connotes something different from a Paladin, so I can see those as distinctive classes with their own roles.

And I like your ideas for the spell schools, though I think having players choose which schools to access on rolling initiative could potentially slow the game down, but that's something that we would have to check during playtesting.

Shimeran

2016-03-09, 09:17 PM

Honestly, reading over all this, I'm starting to get the itch to try building up some "proof of concept" class frameworks. What do you folks think? Maybe we can say sketch out what we envision some classes doing at level 1. That's enough to get some ideas out there without digging in too deep. Then we can circle back around and see if any common formatting and standards are emerging.

Admittedly, that may be part of my creative urges talking. Honestly if we don't start that in the main thread it might be a good idea to start up some splinter threads so folks can vent those energies. I know I've been holding back to keep things on target.

I have a problem with having a single "druid" class for much the same reason that I have a problem with having a single "wizard" class. Druids have always had massive toolboxes that make it very problematic to design a single one that does everything without losing the flavor of what it means to be a druid. For example, druids have traditionally been able to shapeshift (which is kind of defender/striker in my eyes), throw out spells with weather (generally artillery and control) and plant/growth (generally healer and control) themes, and summon animals/have animal companions (both of which are very leader).

This actually matches with where I've noticed my own character designs going. I've found myself increasingly drawn to building the class around a single core ability and expanding out from there. Having more focused classes that are multiclass / hybrid friendly seems to have a lot of potential. I also think it encourages more descriptive class names, though that's a minor perk.

For example, on of my latest experiments is a "Wonder Wielder" class, inspired at least in part by actually rereading the Dying Earth short stories and realizing a lot of characters, even wizards, are essentially scavengers of arcane items and texts. Seeing as there's a folklore precedent for "hero who finds magic", I decided to see what happens if I run with that.

So why not have say "spellbinders" or "grimoirist" instead of the more generic wizard? Why not have a "ferals" who's animal form is their signature feature? For the calling on forces of nature aspect, setting up some mechanics for invoking a contract or pact could be interesting as well as having interesting potential for divine classes and warlocks.

On a side note, encounter and daily powers (or their equivalent) may be a nice place to put some of this cross over potential. For example, maybe all ferals fight with tooth and claw, but some have made deals that let them call the occasional gust or sacrifice some of their own vigor to call on elemental allies.

Okay, so let's break this down into its component parts.

Really solid job here overall. I might quibble on few points, but generally I agree with the points you made here.

3) Resource Management. Characters have limited resources including 'daily' and 'encounter' powers which may be spent in order to improve their positioning, apply conditions to targets, affect odds of success, and increase damage.

Honestly, the strongest resource management aspect I saw in most 4e games was with healing surges. Conversing encounter powers was rarely a good idea unless the power in question is situational. Daily powers were generally more spaced out, though I suppose that was more of a "gentleman's agreement" situation. Honestly, I could see revisiting both to firm up specifically what each is supposed to do.

Roleplaying encounters are generally used to build narrative, refresh resources spent in previous encounters, and prepare for the following encounters.

I like the idea of roleplaying based refreshes. I believe I saw something like that in The Dying Earth rpg.

I don't think that artillery can really work as a truly distinct role separate from striker unless we decide to go into the "all classes get 2+ roles", so that an artillery character can swap out of that role when they're down to a single (or small number of spread out) target. Otherwise, I would probably fold the artillery role under the striker umbrella, and basically treat "striker" as any pure damage driven role.

I'd agree that artillery does need something to fell back on when down to single targets. Striker is a solid choice, but so is controller.

As for the similarity between artillery and striker. I've argued the striker's job should be more about delivering damage where it's most needed, making them experts at focusing fire and killing blows. In contract, the artillery is more about higher total damage, caring less about focusing on the weaker target if it means snaring more targets overall. It's an easily missed difference, but one that could certainly be played up. After all, I think the heavy grouping of offense on a single role is part of why that role has seen disproportionate popularity. After all, if you're more defensively oriented, you'd got 3 roles to suit those tastes.

This is one of the advantages of going with a berserker-style dual role set up for each class since it allows each class to fulfill two different roles with the same selection. Sure, you might have chosen feats and gear that makes you better at one role, but you've still got the fundamental underlying functionality that lets you fulfill the other role.

I'd agree with this in general. There are enough jobs that could use a second option (such as medic or crowd control) that giving it to every class wouldn't hurt. Come to think of it, doing so would also make those roles potentially more modular, potentially making it easier to open up new roles to a class as future class options, which I definitely approve of.

The second part would be to come up with an overarching mechanical paradigm for all classes within a given power source to operate under.

I'd say distinctive core features with a strong mechanical identity are a definite plus. However, this does have me wondering if sources should stay as broad as they are now or if the distinctive features should be on more focused forms of those sources.

One already stated example is the arcane power source. I could see arcane powers having something distinctive like say unusual energy mixtures. Sure, a priest can call down holy fire, but few would call literally burning acid or electrified ice. However, things like say ancient pacts can and should be mechanically distinct from being a master of arcane devices.

I've played around with designing a cloistered cleric in the past, but I've always come up against the problem that a light armored ranged cleric is fundamentally at odds with a heavy armored melee cleric, since a ranged cleric should be decked out more like a wizard whereas a melee cleric should be decked out more like a fighter. It requires so many changes that you might as well just create a separate class for it.

I'd totally play a "dervish" style holy man who's a whirlwind of devastation by letting divine excellence flow through them. Granted, that's a whole other lightly armored archetype. :smallsmile:

Come to think of it, a "preacher" type could be pretty could too. Have them command allied and rebuke foes, make at lot of their break and butter spoken actions with miracles being their big guns.

My most recent iteration of wizard is actually built around the schools of magic as a fundamental mechanic. When they roll initiative, a wizard chooses which of their schools of magic they're going to access (they get to select 2 at level 1 and additional schools as they increase in level).

This actually reminded watchtowers from Mage: The Awakening. I say go for it. If anything, I'd say unshackle yourself from the old schools and go for more evocative imagery. Maybe make them stances. Ooh, maybe call them "gates". "Gate of the Twisted Mind" for illusion / enchantment control, "Gate of the Maelstrom" for evocations, and so on. I'd actually be tempted to make abjuration a defender roll as it plays well with the "hurting my allies is a bad idea and I'm a tough nut to crack myself" theme. Divination would work pretty well as a leader school though.

In any case, I can see some definite potential here. I will say you should not try this concept to a spell book. I think it's got plenty of potential on it's own.

ThePurple

2016-03-09, 09:39 PM

Arcane might be difficult to forge a common link between the classes, however, since they each have very different approaches to obtaining and using arcane power: Wizards through intense study, Warlocks through eldritch pacts, Sorcerers through blood magic and Bards through...the Power of Rockin' Out, I guess.

That's always been something of a problem with the arcane classes. Arcane has always been something of a grab-bag of abilities because they're basically been the "you can do anything but can only do it a limited number of times per day". I would probably explain them all getting to use the same powers as just using different methods to achieve the same goal. So a wizard using shield learned to do it through intense study, the warlock got it from selling his soul for power, the sorcerer is just tapping doing what comes naturally, and the bard is belting out a note that deflects the blade.

On the strength of the archetype, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Part of my problem with it is that the swordmage is explicitly a SWORDmage. When I was rebuilding a lot of the classes, I changed the name to battlemage and allowed them to use whatever melee weapon they felt like rather than forcing them to just use swords. I also built them more as melee wizards as opposed to the weird teleporting, sword throwing class swordmages are.

The idea and implementation of swordmages is cool, but I don't think it was the best choice of arcane defender concept for them to implement first.

And I like your ideas for the spell schools, though I think having players choose which schools to access on rolling initiative could potentially slow the game down, but that's something that we would have to check during playtesting.

With my design, a wizard would choose which schools it knows during creation, much like other classes select at-wills, and then select which one of those schools it is going to start combat using when it rolls initiative. It's basically the same as the stances for the Essentials fighters, except that instead of providing a global bonus to MBAs, it determines what class feature, at-will, and encounter they can use.

Dacia Brabant

2016-03-10, 12:00 AM

Ursus Spelaeus

2016-03-10, 01:56 AM

Ask and ye shall receive! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?481076-Project-Force-Class-Concepts)

Would anyone like me to start any other project threads?

I started one of my own for Sword Fury, but I haven't gotten any replies yet.
(I should also post the most recent version there, but I'm already working on a huge revision so maybe I will just hold off.)

Are you guys cool with me bouncing ideas for my own game off of you guys, since we are all working on 4E clones here?

*edit*

Honestly, the strongest resource management aspect I saw in most 4e games was with healing surges. Conversing encounter powers was rarely a good idea unless the power in question is situational. Daily powers were generally more spaced out, though I suppose that was more of a "gentleman's agreement" situation. Honestly, I could see revisiting both to firm up specifically what each is supposed to do.

Alternatively, we might consider dropping encounter and daily powers altogether.

I like the idea of roleplaying based refreshes. I believe I saw something like that in The Dying Earth rpg.

Dying Earth is a really cool game. I would be all for this.

ThePurple

2016-03-10, 03:02 AM

Alternatively, we might consider dropping encounter and daily powers altogether.

I like daily powers since they're a nice resource to get players to consider the usage of, but I do dislike encounter powers because, so often, they just become a resource that players dump during their first couple of turns in order to generate a massive alpha strike and then proceed to just spam at-wills for the rest of the encounter. I think it would be best if we replaced encounter powers with recharge powers, though, unlike monster recharge powers, have it so that all encounter powers consume the same "slot" that has to be recharged (and said recharge depends upon which encounter power was used). For example, a PC has 2 encounter powers, called power X and power Y; during the first round of the encounter, the PC could use power X, which has a recharge value of 5+, or power Y, which is stronger but has a recharge value of 6+; either way, if they use an encounter power, they can't use it again until they recharge (whether we have PCs recharge off of making at-will attacks or just roll at the start/end of their turns, it doesn't really matter).

One of the things I'd really like to see us do is make it so that powers themselves scale with level (so the encounter power you choose at level 1 gets increased damage die at various intervals rather than being replaced by a stronger version down the line), which allows us to get away with a comparatively smaller list of powers that can be tracked and balanced more effectively.

Ursus Spelaeus

2016-03-10, 03:34 AM

I like daily powers since they're a nice resource to get players to consider the usage of, but I do dislike encounter powers because, so often, they just become a resource that players dump during their first couple of turns in order to generate a massive alpha strike and then proceed to just spam at-wills for the rest of the encounter. I think it would be best if we replaced encounter powers with recharge powers, though, unlike monster recharge powers, have it so that all encounter powers consume the same "slot" that has to be recharged (and said recharge depends upon which encounter power was used). For example, a PC has 2 encounter powers, called power X and power Y; during the first round of the encounter, the PC could use power X, which has a recharge value of 5+, or power Y, which is stronger but has a recharge value of 6+; either way, if they use an encounter power, they can't use it again until they recharge (whether we have PCs recharge off of making at-will attacks or just roll at the start/end of their turns, it doesn't really matter).

I can get behind this. We might even consider looking to 3.5's Tome of Battle for some inspiration.

We can use this design space to help differentiate the classes.
It might also be fun to explore alternative mechanics, such as:
>A class with at-will powers that can't be used if you've already used that same at-will power since the beginning of your last turn.
>The Warlord class in 4E already has a class feature that triggers when allies use action points to attack. We might expand on this.
>A martial class with special rider effects that key off of action point usage (a resource I neglected to cover in my earlier post); if you spend an action point to perform an additional action during your turn, and you use the power with that action, the power also gains an additional effect. (We might further play around with the AEDU structure by giving this same class additional action points per day instead of daily powers.)

One of the things I'd really like to see us do is make it so that powers themselves scale with level (so the encounter power you choose at level 1 gets increased damage die at various intervals rather than being replaced by a stronger version down the line), which allows us to get away with a comparatively smaller list of powers that can be tracked and balanced more effectively.

Absolutely. That's one of my biggest complaints about 4E.

Shimeran

2016-03-10, 06:56 AM

Are you guys cool with me bouncing ideas for my own game off of you guys, since we are all working on 4E clones here?

I'd say that's the OP's call, but it should be workable if done in moderation, especially if being contrasted to other approaches under consideration.

Alternatively, we might consider dropping encounter and daily powers altogether.

Well each of those serves a couple purposes, so it's worth considering how what if anything should fill those roles.

Encounter powers work to vary character output and options across the course of each combat. Having "you can't use this every round" powers is nice as it can help make rounds more distinctive. I agree the current biggest weakness of encounter powers is that they run out, leaving us a slower (reduced output) and less interesting (fewer options) end to the fight. I'd say replace them with "occasional" powers that each have some limitation that keeps them from being used every round. Said limitation can then vary by class, helping make each more distinctive.

Daily powers serve a somewhat similar role over multiple fights, both boosting output for that fight and allowing for more variation between fights. As with their encounter counterparts, their somewhat wonky bit is how they recharge. At it's best, long rest recharging encourages spacing use of these power, making them act as both strategic resource and clutch power to pull out when thing go wrong. The weak point is that the availability of such rests can vary a lot with plot demands, making them less of restriction under fairly common conditions.

Maybe daily recharges can be improved by tieing them to downtime scenes, as mentioned above. Combine that with say not letting them recharge right after their used to keep the variation up. Maybe they have to wait an hour or complete another encounter before they recharge one of these.

Another option I've toyed with in the past is setting action points as a counter point to daily recharges. For example, have long rests reset action points to 0 but let them gain 1 at the end of each encounter. That makes pressing on a more meaningful choice as the encounter after they rest they will have no action points. If you wanted to emphasize this even more, make spending them an occasional power so if they've stockpiled them they can spend multiple over the course of longer fights.

One of the things I'd really like to see us do is make it so that powers themselves scale with level (so the encounter power you choose at level 1 gets increased damage die at various intervals rather than being replaced by a stronger version down the line), which allows us to get away with a comparatively smaller list of powers that can be tracked and balanced more effectively.

I'd be on board with all powers being able to be scaled up. I'm actually reminded of a "focus pool" idea I had earlier where you can spend them all on a multi-die attack or make multiple single die attacks.

Bruno Carvalho

2016-03-10, 07:16 AM

If we're still doing encounter power, I'd suggest that they were transformed into recharge powers (with different recharge numbers based on power balance) and that they begin the battle spent.

Dacia Brabant

2016-03-10, 10:17 AM

Are you guys cool with me bouncing ideas for my own game off of you guys, since we are all working on 4E clones here?

That's fine, as long as it's within the context of our discussion here. I'm positive that ideas from other games will continue to be referenced as well, so I don't have a problem with that.

And I agree that encounter powers definitely should be kept, but I also agree encounter powers should be on a recharge system and should scale with level. Dailies though, I've never been completely sold on. I can wrap my head around martial techniques that are difficult enough to pull off that you can't risk performing them repeatedly; ones that you can't perform again until you rest for 6 hours, eh not so much. I would be in favor of treating them as encounter powers that don't recharge.

For action points, I'm currently in a game on this board where the DM awards them to the party when we reach Experience Point thresholds: I'll have to check the math, but I think it works out to 5 action points per level, and if an encounter awards enough EXP over the course of the battle it could trigger hitting multiple thresholds and thus award multiple APs.

UrielAwakened

2016-03-10, 12:12 PM

If we're still doing encounter power, I'd suggest that they were transformed into recharge powers (with different recharge numbers based on power balance) and that they begin the battle spent.

I like this, actually. But I would shy away from recharge 6 rolls. I wouldn't go lower than 5. A recharge 6 monster power is basically just an encounter power anyway, as the odds of it happening over the course of one battle is slim.

ThePurple

2016-03-10, 01:45 PM

But I would shy away from recharge 6 rolls. I wouldn't go lower than 5. A recharge 6 monster power is basically just an encounter power anyway, as the odds of it happening over the course of one battle is slim.

Unless you include specific utility powers, class features, or leader benefits that allow you to provide bonuses to recharge rolls, which I think we should since it increases tactical options that we can provide to players. I wouldn't make those bonuses to recharge rolls more than +1 for at-wills or +2 for encounter/resource limited features (could also include path and destiny features and magic items), such that a very powerful encounter that merits being recharge 6+ ends up being recharged 50% of the time with the expenditure/use of a particularly powerful mechanism.

Shimeran

2016-03-11, 05:46 AM

If we're still doing encounter power, I'd suggest that they were transformed into recharge powers (with different recharge numbers based on power balance) and that they begin the battle spent.

I admit I find an escalating tempo more appealing than the current alpha strike mentality. I also like breaking things up so at wills don't become largely a sign of exhaustion.

I suppose the biggest counter point I have is it makes clearing out lower level foes earlier in the fight harder. However, use of minionization rules can help counter that. On a more general note, starting low does mean the enemy team will tend to stay in full force a bit longer, so we'll need to be ready to adjust for that.

So what's the general opinion? Start strong, ramp up, something in between, vary it by class?

On a related note, I think having a separate d6 roll is unnecessary in general. Tieing it to an existing roll, such as an unmodified attack roll works well enough. In that case, I actually like it triggering of a low roll as then characters get compensation on a miss. Heck, you could have that threshold raise over the course of the battle.

All that being said, I expect triggers may vary between classes. In fact, I can see making some powers unlock when certain conditions are met, though they'd likely need extra restrictions to keep them from being spammed after that happens.

Dailies though, I've never been completely sold on. I can wrap my head around martial techniques that are difficult enough to pull off that you can't risk performing them repeatedly; ones that you can't perform again until you rest for 6 hours, eh not so much. I would be in favor of treating them as encounter powers that don't recharge.

I think it's worth breaking down what dailies give us. What I like about them is:

Having things you can't do every fight as it makes the fight you do them in more distinctive.
Having big guns to pull out when things look bleak is very useful.

To that, I'd add ThePurple's:

I like daily powers since they're a nice resource to get players to consider the usage of

Let me know if there are any other points, but we should be able to build a replacement that hits these points. Currently, no one has put forth the long rest requirement as something they really like, so we need not tie it to that.

The simplest swap might just be to say you can't use them again if you used them during the last encounter. However, I suspect we do want to let players recover them all when they have enough downtime as it makes narrative sense. Maybe charging action points to recover them would work, especially if we up the rate to just giving an action point after every encounter. Throw in the restriction that you can only recharge ones you just used during a long rest and I think we'd have a good start.

Bruno Carvalho

2016-03-11, 06:19 AM

On a related note, I think having a separate d6 roll is unnecessary in general. Tieing it to an existing roll, such as an unmodified attack roll works well enough. In that case, I actually like it triggering of a low roll as then characters get compensation on a miss. Heck, you could have that threshold raise over the course of the battle.

All that being said, I expect triggers may vary between classes. In fact, I can see making some powers unlock when certain conditions are met, though they'd likely need extra restrictions to keep them from being spammed after that happens.

That's a very nice idea. Having recharge conditions other than "roll high no d6" means we have lots of design space to work. An encounter power designed to "recharge when you miss with a at-will" is quite nice. I like this idea very much.

Dailies

Someone (sorry if I cannot remember why) has already suggested this, but let me bring this back. At-will and encounter are "game-based" triggers. Daily is a "time-based" trigger that really don't mesh well. I'm in for removing "daily" powers and adding "session" powers or even "adventure" powers instead. We have no need to remain in this kind of simulationist heritage from older D&D editions.

UrielAwakened

2016-03-11, 10:15 AM

I agree we need something Daily-esque, but it does not necessarily need to recover on a daily basis.

Do we feel like surges are enough of a daily management resource, though?

Dacia Brabant

2016-03-11, 10:53 AM

I admit I find an escalating tempo more appealing than the current alpha strike mentality. I also like breaking things up so at wills don't become largely a sign of exhaustion.

I suppose the biggest counter point I have is it makes clearing out lower level foes earlier in the fight harder. However, use of minionization rules can help counter that. On a more general note, starting low does mean the enemy team will tend to stay in full force a bit longer, so we'll need to be ready to adjust for that.

So what's the general opinion? Start strong, ramp up, something in between, vary it by class?

On a related note, I think having a separate d6 roll is unnecessary in general. Tieing it to an existing roll, such as an unmodified attack roll works well enough. In that case, I actually like it triggering of a low roll as then characters get compensation on a miss. Heck, you could have that threshold raise over the course of the battle.

All that being said, I expect triggers may vary between classes. In fact, I can see making some powers unlock when certain conditions are met, though they'd likely need extra restrictions to keep them from being spammed after that happens.

This is really good, but if we do end up going with recharge an encounter on a missed at-will, even if just for one class, we'll need to have it written in the RAW that missing on purpose doesn't count for that, because otherwise that'll get abused.

I think it's worth breaking down what dailies give us. What I like about them is:

Having things you can't do every fight as it makes the fight you do them in more distinctive.
Having big guns to pull out when things look bleak is very useful.

To that, I'd add ThePurple's:

Let me know if there are any other points, but we should be able to build a replacement that hits these points. Currently, no one has put forth the long rest requirement as something they really like, so we need not tie it to that.

The simplest swap might just be to say you can't use them again if you used them during the last encounter. However, I suspect we do want to let players recover them all when they have enough downtime as it makes narrative sense. Maybe charging action points to recover them would work, especially if we up the rate to just giving an action point after every encounter. Throw in the restriction that you can only recharge ones you just used during a long rest and I think we'd have a good start.

These are good points, but I'm in agreement with Uriel and Bruno that having it recharge on a daily/time basis is a problem. It feels like a hold-over of Vancian Spellcasting, and that IMO is not a good thing. Running with Bruno's suggestion, we could use something similar to storyteller games and treat encounter powers as "scene" powers and daily powers as "story" powers: something that's memorable and epic (small e) but only happens once until the next adventure.

(Note: I don't think we should use "scene" and "story" as the terminology in the finished product, just using them as examples for how the mechanics might work.)

UrielAwakened

2016-03-11, 11:08 AM

Can we explore the possibility of this escalation die for a minute then?

It's an intriguing concept to me.

Could it be a d20 that goes up every time something dramatic happens? Probably something like once at the start of each round, every time someone spends a healing surge, maybe one other thing?

It could be used to affect how the battle is going in some subtle ways or influence what powers are available.

ThePurple

2016-03-11, 11:12 AM

I agree we need something Daily-esque, but it does not necessarily need to recover on a daily basis.

One of the house rules I use is that my players can elect to recharge one of their daily *attack* powers instead of gaining an action point whenever they reach a milestone. It works out pretty well.

Do we feel like surges are enough of a daily management resource, though?

Another one of my house rules that I feel works out much better is turning HSs into an adventure management resource by restricting extended rests to only occur when players can actually spend a long time (at least ~1 week) recuperating in a safe location (like an inn, their home, etc.). Going to sleep for the night in the middle of a monster infested dungeon and having every pop back up to full resources never made much sense to me, and it definitely doesn't encourage a playstyle where attrition is actually a danger.

Of course, in addition to this, I have another house rule that, for the purpose of determining your number of healing surges, a player is allowed to use their highest ability modifier - 1 instead of Con if they want to, which normalizes HSs a great deal and makes it so that not everyone feels compelled to crank the living **** out of their Con, which always bothered me since it's basically 4e's "most important stat".

The combination of these two elements has allowed me to create adventures where I can actually expect a all of my players to be down to just a scant few healing surges as opposed to situations I experienced before instituting these rules where, in those few cases when HS management mattered, one (low Con) character almost always ended up with 0 healing surges whereas other (high Con) characters still had half of their HSs, even though both had spent the same.

That's a very nice idea. Having recharge conditions other than "roll high no d6" means we have lots of design space to work. An encounter power designed to "recharge when you miss with a at-will" is quite nice. I like this idea very much.

I'm not quite sure I agree with having a large number of recharge conditions other than the recharge die, mainly because that creates a lot of balance fuzziness, and balance was always one of the strongest elements of 4e that we're trying to maintain. I would personally argue for the use of a recharge die (if only for simplicity's sake) and account for the desired non-roll recharges via various feats that improve recharge chance whenever you meet certain conditions (like a feat that gives you a +2 bonus to your next recharge die whenever you miss with an at-will attack).

I also think we should replace players have a number of different encounter powers that all recharge separately and replace them with a number of encounter power options (that increase with level) that all use the same recharge, so players can't just dump encounter powers all at once.

Of course, I think this should only apply to attack powers and that utility powers should definitely follow the standard design.

Shimeran

2016-03-11, 06:01 PM

Do we feel like surges are enough of a daily management resource, though?

Surges are pretty good at reflecting exhaustion over a long work day. As is, dailies tend to burn out faster, so they're a bit more prone to leaving you high and dry if you underestimate how many encounters are left in the day. Whether that's a good thing or a bad one is up for debate.

This is really good, but if we do end up going with recharge an encounter on a missed at-will, even if just for one class, we'll need to have it written in the RAW that missing on purpose doesn't count for that, because otherwise that'll get abused.

Well tieing the trigger to an unmodified roll makes intentional misses harder and we'll want the "bag of rats" rule in place to avoid attack exploits anyway.

Running with Bruno's suggestion, we could use something similar to storyteller games and treat encounter powers as "scene" powers and daily powers as "story" powers: something that's memorable and epic (small e) but only happens once until the next adventure.

Can we explore the possibility of this escalation die for a minute then?

It's an intriguing concept to me.

Could it be a d20 that goes up every time something dramatic happens? Probably something like once at the start of each round, every time someone spends a healing surge, maybe one other thing?

It could be used to affect how the battle is going in some subtle ways or influence what powers are available.

This actually reminds me of a desperation mechanic I was toying with a while ago. Start the meter off low, raise it as the fight drags on, maybe give it a kicker for climactic fights. I could see doing something similar and requiring the tension reach a certain threshold before daily powers can be used, so long as you don't mind them only coming out at big fights or ones that have gone horribly wrong.

One of the house rules I use is that my players can elect to recharge one of their daily *attack* powers instead of gaining an action point whenever they reach a milestone.

That's fairly close to the "charge an action point" idea I popped out earlier, so good to see it's worked well on field tests.

Another one of my house rules that I feel works out much better is turning HSs into an adventure management resource by restricting short rests to only occur when players can actually spend a long time (at least ~1 week) recuperating in a safe location (like an inn, their home, etc.). Going to sleep for the night in the middle of a monster infested dungeon and having every pop back up to full resources never made much sense to me, and it definitely doesn't encourage a playstyle where attrition is actually a danger.

Did you mean long rests here?

I will say this did make me think of giving back a few surges for limited rest or similar chances to recoup. Sprinkle a few extra surges through the adventure to give you more leeway in stretching out those full refreshes.

I would personally argue for the use of a recharge die (if only for simplicity's sake) and account for the desired non-roll recharges via various feats that improve recharge chance whenever you meet certain conditions (like a feat that gives you a +2 bonus to your next recharge die whenever you miss with an at-will attack).

I'm not sure adding an extra die just for recharging is that much simpler than the other options being discussed.

ThePurple

2016-03-11, 06:15 PM

Did you mean long rests here?

Yerp. Meant to say "extended rests" instead of short rests. I'll go edit it.

I will say this did make me think of giving back a few surges for limited rest or similar chances to recoup. Sprinkle a few extra surges through the adventure to give you more leeway in stretching out those full refreshes.

I occasionally do this, but, in general, I haven't really seen the need for it ever since I instituted the rule that allows players to use highest ability mod - 1 for HSs. I have a tendency to design a single adventure (e.g. no extended rests) to provide all of the experience for an entire level, and it works out very well: players are stressed just enough on their resources to make it matter but no so much as to have them run out of resources partway through even with good play.

Shimeran

2016-03-13, 11:42 PM

Out of curiosity, how do folks feel about using glancing blows to treat the dual ability defense issues? Specifically, I was thinking of something like this: say an attack vs reflex did half damage if it beat either your int or dex defense (calculated as normal). If you invest in both, you get full protection and enemies either hit full on or miss. If you pump one over the other, you get the same chance of avoiding a full hit, you've just got a chance of taking a reduced hit based on how big you let the gap get.

ThePurple

2016-03-14, 12:38 AM

Out of curiosity, how do folks feel about using glancing blows to treat the dual ability defense issues?

Too complex and reduces the elegance that 4e is famous for. Also, that's simply encouraging people to double up on one NAD, which ends up screwing them over on another. You'd have to basically provide universal increases to all ability scores (thereby eliminating ability score customization beyond character creation) in order to not have the progressions get completely screwed up (which is one of the problems with 4e's existing endgame).

Shimeran

2016-03-18, 12:23 AM

I've noticed we're got a lot of ideas going in different directions. I'd hate to see that do in a solid attempt at bringing a 4e stand in to a usable state. As such, I've been thinking of setting up a kind of skeletal base game that can be easily modded and built upon. Basically start with fundamentals and build up toward a 4e like game by layering on mechanics in increments.

For the seed, I'm thinking of borrowing a page from Ursus Spelaeus's Sword Fury by defining what characters can do in formatted blocks. I'm working on the terminology and format now, but if we've still got active readers I'll post while I work. Either way, I'm aiming to make sure a framework gets out there and into open licence territory so this or future attempts have some groundwork to build on.

Bruno Carvalho

2016-03-18, 05:28 AM

We do still get active readers. Bring it on!

Shimeran

2016-03-18, 07:50 AM

Alright then. I've actually got a fair backlog of ideas but didn't want to monopolize the thread. For the underlying system, I'll be aiming toward simplicity with the idea that this can always be expanded later.

First, a brief not on terminology. I'm currently calling the mechanical elements attached to game world objects it's features. The most common and basic features being traits that assign number values to qualities of the character and abilities that define what characters can do. For details on that last choice of terms, dig into the spoiler.

I went with ability as it the lightest name I could think of that covers "something the character can do". Under this approach we can still call strength and it's kin ability modifiers, though honestly the names is a bit clunky. I'm actually leaning toward "talents" or "core traits" as an alternative.

Now for the ability blocks, I was thinking of using this template:

Name
Tags
Action(type): do something to target
Outcome: details
Check: trait against trait
Success: details
Failure: details
Trained: details
Boosted: details

For the line items..

Action cover what the character is doing, covering action type as well as targetting embedded in an in world description of what the character is doing.
Outcome is the guaranteed effect line.
Check takes the roll of the attack line, generalized for non-attack use.
Trained is an optional bit in case we want to give extra perks when an ability is trained, beyond the default check bonus.
Boosted shows how the ability is improved when it gets a power boost. We can then provide those boost through limited use powers and character progression..

So taken all together, we might have something like this:

Strike
Combat, Offensive
Action(major): You try to hit an adjacent enemy with your own limbs or an improvised weapon.
Check: strength against armor and dexterity
Success: The target takes 1d4 + strength bashing damage.
Boosted: On a success, the target takes an extra die of damage per boost.

Anyone wondering about the check line can look here.

I used two opposed traits instead of 1 to give the flexible coverage of dual stat defenses without the extra number to track. The basic system is set to just use traits directly as phasing them in should be easy on offshots that want to do so. Part of the design philosophy here is it's easier to add mechanics than remove them on embedded.

As for it specifically being armor vs dexterity, that lets us treat the armored quality as separate and independent from agility, potentially cutting down on the need for separate light armor rules.

Finally, I was thinking of grouping class features into "styles" for easy reference. So each class would have a "combat style" and at least 1 other style. I'm thinking exploration, persuasion, and investigation to roughly map to the physical, social, and mental skill challenge groups in the obsidion skill challenge.

Bruno Carvalho

2016-03-18, 09:20 AM

First, a brief not on terminology.

I'm currently calling the mechanical elements attached to game world objects it's features. The most common and basic features being traits that assign number values to qualities of the character and abilities that define what characters can do. For details on that last choice of terms, dig into the spoiler.

I went with ability as it the lightest name I could think of that covers "something the character can do". Under this approach we can still call strength and it's kin ability modifiers, though honestly the names is a bit clunky. I'm actually leaning toward "talents" or "core traits" as an alternative.

Now for the ability blocks, I was thinking of using this template:

Name
Tags
Action(type): do something to target
Outcome: details
Check: trait against trait
Success: details
Failure: details
Trained: details
Boosted: details

For the line items..

Action cover what the character is doing, covering action type as well as targetting embedded in an in world description of what the character is doing.
Outcome is the guaranteed effect line.
Check takes the roll of the attack line, generalized for non-attack use.
Trained is an optional bit in case we want to give extra perks when an ability is trained, beyond the default check bonus.
Boosted shows how the ability is improved when it gets a power boost. We can then provide those boost through limited use powers and character progression..

I'm fine with the terminology. Maybe we could use Roll20's terminology (attributes and abilities), but traits & abilities also are good.

So taken all together, we might have something like this:

Strike
Combat, Offensive
Action(major): You try to hit an adjacent enemy with your own limbs or an improvised weapon.
Check: strength against armor and dexterity
Success: The target takes 1d4 + strength bashing damage.
Boosted: On a success, the target takes an extra die of damage per boost.

Anyone wondering about the check line can look here.

I used two opposed traits instead of 1 to give the flexible coverage of dual stat defenses without the extra number to track. The basic system is set to just use traits directly as phasing them in should be easy on offshots that want to do so. Part of the design philosophy here is it's easier to add mechanics than remove them on embedded.

As for it specifically being armor vs dexterity, that lets us treat the armored quality as separate and independent from agility, potentially cutting down on the need for separate light armor rules.

Finally, I was thinking of grouping class features into "styles" for easy reference. So each class would have a "combat style" and at least 1 other style. I'm thinking exploration, persuasion, and investigation to roughly map to the physical, social, and mental skill challenge groups in the obsidion skill challenge.

I disagree with that. I'd still go for derived values, be they AC, Ref, Surge Value or something like that. What if you got a something that add +2 to ref or +1 to surge value? It would read quite wonky. Also, what about heavy armor? "This armor does not add any other trait to any check' defense involving armor"?

Shimeran

2016-03-18, 11:35 AM

I'm fine with the terminology. Maybe we could use Roll20's terminology (attributes and abilities), but traits & abilities also are good.

I can certainly see that. "Attributes" was an earlier choice. How about we split the difference and have attributes cover the standard six and leave traits as the umbrella term that includes derived values.

I disagree with that. I'd still go for derived values, be they AC, Ref, Surge Value or something like that. What if you got a something that add +2 to ref or +1 to surge value?

I've got nothing against having derived traits. It's just that defenses are one of those places where people are divided. Some folks was the standard pairings, some suggest alternate parings, others change the calculations all together, and so on.

So for this first pass, I ran attribute based defenses rather than derived ones. My thinking being that it's easy enough to write rules such as say "When you defend with dexterity, you can use intelligence instead." to stand in for the fixed pairings. I'd certainly be open to alternative, as this was meant to be a lightweight default. One a side note, dynamic pairing does allow for things like say pairing Int and Wis to avoid being tricked or Str and Dex to avoid being pinned.

It would read quite wonky. Also, what about heavy armor? "This armor does not add any other trait to any check' defense involving armor"?

As written, you'd just use the higher of armor or dexterity, so high dex characters would likely only use armor for it's enchantments. The funny thing is it's actually light armor that makes thing more complicated.

We can allow armor to add to dex defense, but them we get complications that up the complexity. For example, that lets armor + dex get higher than most defenses, which in turn means either attacks vs armor need to be higher to compensate or more defenses need to get similar item bonuses. I'd be fine to having things like "will armor", perhaps as a magic item effect. It's just something we need to plan around.

Bruno Carvalho

2016-03-18, 04:26 PM

What if there were 4 defenses: Armor, Fort, Ref and Will.

Fort/Ref/Will would be only base values (usually 10 to 12 based on class for starters).

Attacks that targetted Fort/Ref/Will would be against defense+stat (like Strenght vs Fort+Con)

Armor would be equal to armor bonus.

Attacks that targetted Armor would be against only Armor (without adding any other stat)

Armor would be calculated as such: If wearing heavy armor, equal to armor value (for example 16 to Chain mail or 18 for plate mail). If wearing light armor, base + stat (For example, 12+(higher of dex or int) for leather armor or 10+(higher of dex or int) in case of cloth armor)

ThePurple

2016-03-18, 04:46 PM

Trained is an optional bit in case we want to give extra perks when an ability is trained, beyond the default check bonus.
Boosted shows how the ability is improved when it gets a power boost. We can then provide those boost through limited use powers and character progression..

I disagree with these two, mainly because I think that augmentation of powers is more appropriate for class features as opposed to the power entry itself. The one exception to this would be level based progression of the damage/success capability of the power (e.g. encounter powers listed as doing more damage at level 7, 17, 27, etc.).

I used two opposed traits instead of 1 to give the flexible coverage of dual stat defenses without the extra number to track. The basic system is set to just use traits directly as phasing them in should be easy on offshots that want to do so. Part of the design philosophy here is it's easier to add mechanics than remove them on embedded.

I agree with Bruno here, mainly because checking against a single specific attribute forces people to, from a defensive perspective, keep all of their ability mods high. It also has problems with balancing light v. heavy armor if both are intended to apply to AC (I could see AC being purely DEX/INT based if we have heavy armor apply resistance or temp hp, but those are really wonky to balance).

Derived values allow us to have multiple sources for determining those derived values, which is a good thing. It's slightly more complicated, but the pros most definitely outweigh the cons.

Finally, I was thinking of grouping class features into "styles" for easy reference. So each class would have a "combat style" and at least 1 other style.

That gets really weird with the terminology, especially if you want to apply the same terminology to both combat and non-combat. Limiting characters to a non-combat style also ends up giving us the exact same problems that 4e has with skill challenges, where some people are basically worthless outside of the specific domain of their trained skills and feel useless in those skill challenges.

I'm thinking exploration, persuasion, and investigation to roughly map to the physical, social, and mental skill challenge groups in the obsidion skill challenge.

I really prefer physical, social, and mental mainly because there is a *lot* of overlap in the categories you mentioned. If players are trying to find a criminal, is it investigation (finding physical clues) or persuasion (finding/convincing witnesses)? Is Perception an investigation or an exploration skill?

The best way to categorize skills, as I see it, is to set them up as physical, mental, and social so that characters are all reasonably well rounded and then, for skill challenges, rather than categorizing which skills can be used for what, tell the GM to describe the skill challenge or situation and then ask players to describe their actions and then have the GM adjudicate which skill and ability mod should be used (we should include an "example script" as well as some guidelines for the adjudication). Skill challenges are, by their very nature, much more freeform than combat is since they cover *so many more* types of situations.

As for the use of skills in combat, we would definitely need explicit guidelines for those, like saying outright that jumping or climbing is Athletics + (STR or DEX) v. whatever-we-decide-DCs-are (I actually think that the "damage" die is more appropriate for those than skill checks; a skill check for a jump basically determines if you tripped and fell or screwed up your landing whereas the success roll determines how far you actually jumped; jumping is itself trivially easy to do whereas the quality of your success is actually important; conversely, a skill check for climbing would be determined by the surface you're climbing and distance would determine how far you travel so both would be appropriate) or that a check to hide is Stealth + (INT or DEX) v. 10 + target's Perception (since that's basically binary; either they see you or they don't; of course, we could always find a use for the success roll, like providing temp hp or resistance equal to the success roll while you are hidden in order to represent whatever you're hiding behind soaking up some of the hit or only exposing less vital areas).

What if there were 4 defenses: Armor, Fort, Ref and Will.

Fort/Ref/Will would be only base values (usually 10 to 12 based on class for starters).

Attacks that targetted Fort/Ref/Will would be against defense+stat (like Strenght vs Fort+Con)

Armor would be equal to armor bonus.

Attacks that targetted Armor would be against only Armor (without adding any other stat)

Armor would be calculated as such: If wearing heavy armor, equal to armor value (for example 16 to Chain mail or 18 for plate mail). If wearing light armor, base + stat (For example, 12+(higher of dex or int) for leather armor or 10+(higher of dex or int) in case of cloth armor)

That replaces character creation complexity with play complexity, which is a bad thing. A higher level of complexity during creation/between play is perfectly fine. A higher level of complexity during play is a definitely bad thing because it bogs things down in things that aren't really appropriate for combat, like math and checking multiple values. Play should be very streamlined and having explicit values for "attacks" and "defenses" with a limited number of situational modifiers is much more desirable than having to combine multiple values on the fly with a large number of situational modifiers.

iPlayMindflay

2016-03-18, 06:48 PM

So my general thought process on how to fix a lot of the skill gap issues as well as forgotten NAD's is by adding +1 to each ability at (4, 8, 11, 14, 18, 21, 24, 28) yes it does mean that the numbers get higher but there's a notably smaller gap between high and low scores.

As far as secondary roles I like what WOTC (possibly un)intentionally did by having each classes secondary roles being based on their power source (i.e. Divine are leaders, and Martial are strikers). As I've gone through PHB1 and looked at all the powers (and brought them closer to a standard power curve) they all follow that pattern very well. I currently have each class written on notebook paper but am in the process of updating/uploading them electronically. If you are interested in a copy of what I have so far shoot me a message and I'll get it to you.

I'm also really liking the idea that utilities are based on power source rather than specific class, it may take some tweaking to figure out but it doesn't seem unreasonable that a rogue would be able to learn a modified Pass Forward.

Dacia Brabant

2016-03-18, 09:08 PM

Good to see the discussion is back on here. Are there any other sub-topics you folks would like to see branch off into their own threads at this time?

Shimeran

2016-03-19, 07:44 PM

Not at the moment. However, if we can get buy in an ability block format we could possibly split that off to start populating the list of standard abilities.

Speaking of which, I've gone over the defense issue you folks had with strike. On mulling it over, AC in 4e functions like an offshoot of reflexes. In fact, the two are identical when unarmored. That got me thinking of the following revisions.

Strike
Combat, Offensive
Action(major): You try to hit an adjacent enemy with your own limbs or an improvised weapon.
Check: strength against reflexes
Success: The target takes 1d4 + strength impact damage.
Boosted: On a success, the target takes an extra die of damage per boost.

I'm leaving the boosted line in at the moment as it acts as a more flexible placeholder for the "level x:" lines.

Now for light armor all we need to do is have it grant "+x to defend against impact damage". That bonus would likely be +1 for the cheap version and +2 for the good stuff. A similar bonus could be granted for say cold damage when wearing heavy clothes, making it nicely extensible.

That leaves heavy armor. A tempting option is to have it grant the following ability:

Endure Impact
Combat, Defensive
Trigger: You are targeted by an ability that deals impact damage.
Outcome: Use your fortitude in place of reflexes when defending against the ability.

You might not even need armor proficiency with this approach, at least not for common armors. After all, low str/con characters will be poorly served by heavy armor anyway, making it kind of like a built in penalty.

Alternately, if we want more gradients for heavy armor it could have this ability:

Ironclad
Combat, Defensive
Trigger: You are targeted by an ability that deals impact damage.
Outcome: Use the armor's toughness in place of your reflexes when defending against the ability.

Personally I prefer the former, but both are workable. On a side note, this does open the gate for similar abilities on say mystic or sanctified vestments.

(On a more minor point, "Outcome" does look a bit awkward for triggered abilities. Think we can can get away with an "Effects" line without running into too many concerns about copying the WotC format? Alternative names are also welcome.)

ThePurple

2016-03-19, 10:49 PM

Speaking of which, I've gone over the defense issue you folks had with strike. On mulling it over, AC in 4e functions like an offshoot of reflexes.

You're trying to reinvent the wheel. The separation of AC from Reflex neatly accommodates all kinds of things you're trying to do in a much more circuitous manner. AC also addresses one issue that you've ignored.

First off, AC and Reflex are only tangentially related purely because we default to AC and Reflex using the same pair of ability mods by default. As soon as you do away with that by using the Key Defensive Stat, you do away with the automatic relation. The tangential relation now varies based upon what class you belong to, and, within that context, getting rid of AC means that only high DEX/INT classes can effectively defend themselves from normal attacks.

This brings us to the second point, that your workaround (namely, creating powers that replace all occurrences of one defense with another) is incredibly clumsy for gameplay (adding additional steps to what should be a quick reference) and only necessary because you want to get rid of a single accounting variable that you already admit requires fixing in order to remove.

The third is that attack rolls against AC and Reflex are not the same. Even if the defenses *were* the same, weapon attacks, which almost always target AC, have proficiency bonuses factored in so they are naturally higher. If you get rid of proficiency bonuses, you decrease our ability to provide tangible differences between the different weapons.

In fact, the two are identical when unarmored.

Not if the class gets a bonus to Reflex. Merging AC with Ref would require pretty much make Reflex so incredibly powerful that it's significantly less effective to buff any other defense (because normal attacks as well as dodge-able magical effects would target Reflex).

Overall, I can understand the desire to get rid of AC (because reducing the number of variables you have to track is nice), but there are so many other things you have to modify in order to account for getting rid of AC that end up bogging down gameplay that it's worth more to just keep it around. As a nice rule of thumb, if you're providing an at-will reaction power that would basically be applied more often than it *isn't* applied, you're better off just making it a class feature that modifies the reaction.

Strike
Combat, Offensive
Action(major): You try to hit an adjacent enemy with your own limbs or an improvised weapon.
Check: strength against reflexes
Success: The target takes 1d4 + strength impact damage.
Boosted: On a success, the target takes an extra die of damage per boost.

I really don't see the point in creating a power for the exclusive purpose of attacking without a weapon or with an improvised weapon. Unarmed and improvised weapon attacks are basically just suboptimal (except for a few builds) variants of any other weapon attack, which is the exact reason why 4e just handled them as numerically subpar weapons.

That leaves heavy armor. A tempting option is to have it grant the following ability

If you really feel strongly about doing away with AC, granting that ability is probably the least elegant solution imaginable. If you really want to go this route, change the powers that the ability would defend against so that they target the highest of REF or FORT, since that's basically what you're doing with the power.

Also, that doesn't really deal with the many primal class concepts that aren't intended to be highly intelligent or agile while simultaneously not wearing armor. You'd basically need to include that power as a class feature for some classes, which, once again, isn't nearly as elegant as the KDS.

(On a more minor point, "Outcome" does look a bit awkward for triggered abilities. Think we can can get away with an "Effects" line without running into too many concerns about copying the WotC format? Alternative names are also welcome.)

I highly doubt that WotC has the sole control over describing the effects of an ability as the "Effects" of an ability.

Shimeran

2016-03-20, 02:30 AM

You seem way more invested in whether or not AC is it's own thing than I am. I'm just noticing it stands out awkwardly from the other defenses and am looking at ways to address that.

First off, AC and Reflex are only tangentially related purely because we default to AC and Reflex using the same pair of ability mods by default.

Honestly, that touches part of the weirdness with AC. It doesn't really have the same kind of strong identity the other defenses have. It's a strange fusion of armor plating and agility that's hard to sum up in one word. The closest I've come so far is "Resilience".

As soon as you do away with that by using the Key Defensive Stat, you do away with the automatic relation. The tangential relation now varies based upon what class you belong to, and, within that context, getting rid of AC means that only high DEX/INT classes can effectively defend themselves from normal attacks.

You're not making a lot of sense here. If you get rid of AC, then having a class feature that modifies it does nothing. As such, I'm not sure why you mention using the KDS rebind and then take away AC.

In any case, the rules as written above let high Str/Con characters get the same level of protection using heavy armor. So that just leaves character who somehow have 4 weak stats, in which case having say mystic armor that's based of will would fit the role if you're not already doing that through a class feature.

This brings us to the second point, that your workaround (namely, creating powers that replace all occurrences of one defense with another) is incredibly clumsy for gameplay (adding additional steps to what should be a quick reference)

You were just advocating something that effectively does the same thing. KDS replaces all occurrences of one attribute for another for one defense, which effectively gives 2 defenses the same base.

As for it being a power, that's simply because I was trying out how a passive ability might be written using the format of other abilities.

and only necessary because you want to get rid of a single accounting variable that you already admit requires fixing in order to remove.

Actually, part of why I looked at removing AC is it required fixes to work in the first place. Namely, weapons needed to get a proficiency bonus just to balance it out. It makes it an exception that operates differently from the other defenses. I'm far less concerned with it being another number on the sheet. What I dislike is we have an anomaly that's adding complexity.

I'd honestly be fine with flipping it and having other defenses get similar bonuses, say letting neck slot items protect you from magical attacks much like armor does from physical ones.

I guess I'm asking why we need to have this exception in an otherwise smooth system. Why does it need to operate differently? Are we just carrying it forward unexamined like the sacred cows 4e so readily shed?

The third is that attack rolls against AC and Reflex are not the same. Even if the defenses *were* the same, weapon attacks, which almost always target AC, have proficiency bonuses factored in so they are naturally higher.

Which they only have because AC is the only defense to get a bump from equipment. Build in support from similar protective gear for other attacks and you can bring proficiency to implement attacks to.

If you get rid of proficiency bonuses, you decrease our ability to provide tangible differences between the different weapons.

Nope. You could just as easily make "accurate" a weapon property that adds +1 to attacks.

Not if the class gets a bonus to Reflex. Merging AC with Ref would require pretty much make Reflex so incredibly powerful that it's significantly less effective to buff any other defense (because normal attacks as well as dodge-able magical effects would target Reflex).

Unless you're wearing heavy armor, in which case buffing fortitude is better. Add in mystic armor and we're up all stats being being able to double tap.

Overall, I can understand the desire to get rid of AC (because reducing the number of variables you have to track is nice), but there are so many other things you have to modify in order to account for getting rid of AC that end up bogging down gameplay that it's worth more to just keep it around.

There's only 1 extra thing that get modified during play, that being that the above item bonus vs impact damage is situational. It's the same level of complexity as remembering to add a proficiency bonus to weapon attacks. The redirect to another stat already happens with existing mechanics.

I get the feeling most of the "other things you have to modify" are assumed rules.

As a nice rule of thumb, if you're providing an at-will reaction power that would basically be applied more often than it *isn't* applied, you're better off just making it a class feature that modifies the reaction.

As mentioned above, the "at-will reaction power" part just comes from trying to set a standard layout for passive abilities. Feel free to propose an alternate layout. Maybe if we just include an "effects" line after the tags list.

Second, why would I make how heavy armor operates by default a class feature? Are you advocating for no difference between armor types?

I really don't see the point in creating a power for the exclusive purpose of attacking without a weapon or with an improvised weapon. Unarmed and improvised weapon attacks are basically just suboptimal (except for a few builds) variants of any other weapon attack, which is the exact reason why 4e just handled them as numerically subpar weapons.

Mainly because them we can have other things modify that ability. For example, weapons can have "When making a strike with this weapon, use the weapon's damage die instead." As simple as that we've got weapon die in without needing a special notation for them. More advanced powers can also be written as simple "Make a strike. If you hit..".

If you really want to go this route, change the powers that the ability would defend against so that they target the highest of REF or FORT, since that's basically what you're doing with the power.

No more than 4e already does. Endure Impact makes you defend with fort while wearing heavy armor. You don't get both at once.

Also, that doesn't really deal with the many primal class concepts that aren't intended to be highly intelligent or agile while simultaneously not wearing armor. You'd basically need to include that power as a class feature for some classes, which, once again, isn't nearly as elegant as the KDS.

KDS is basically including a power like that for all classes rather than just the exceptions noted above. You seem strangely hung up on it being written as an ability, but it's a passive perk, just like KDS is. Both basically add "when you take this type of attack, use this stat instead" to the class.

Tegu8788

2016-03-20, 02:51 AM

So I just spent the day catching up on stuff since page 3. Oh boy stuff has happened, but currently it's much better. The reason I stopped reading has been resolved, among other issues.

The first, and most obvious, thing I did was do away with class based utility power lists and instead replaced them with power source based lists (and I made them not just powers but included passive benefits, like the Wilderness Knacks). In this way, all divine characters draw from the same pool of utility features (so any divine character can learn Cure Light Wounds and any arcane character can learn Shield or Dimension Door) that are split up by tier rather than level (so you have heroic utility features, paragon utility features, and epic utility features rather than assigning them based on level).

I love this kind of idea. Also I agree that each role should have a thematic focus, but not explicitly a role. Martial does more damage, but not always more mobile. Primal is tough and beefy, but they don't inherently have a mark mechanic. Divine can restore hit points, but not all share buffs. And arcane is just a mess. More on this later.

You can also encourage this mindset by giving out more skill training than the game does by default since 4e was really stingy with giving out skill training to anyone except rangers and rogues. You could outright *require* this mindset by giving out skills to classes based upon categorization of skills, such that a class gets X trained physical skills, X trained social skills, and X trained mental skills so that they always have at least 1 trained skill that can be reasonably applied in a given scenario (even if it's not really the "optimal" skill to use).

This is one thing I really liked from World of Darkness. As someone else said, increase the base number of trained skills so there is a greater chance to participate, and spread them out. Yes the fighter gets more physical than the bard or wizard, but everyone has at least one of each type. I'm math interested but my dyslexic keeps me from being useful here. Having a trained and master step seems solid, I just hate hate hate and loathe skill ranks. +2/+5, with rerolls and whatnot all seem good.

I'll freely admit this all a drastic simplification as the army has to assemble and open fire without the higher level opponent escaping, but none of that is dependent on the numbers we seem to be going round in circles about.

At this point, maybe we should stop worrying about armies being relevant and focus on the smaller scale.

Awesome math, thanks. Good to know.

What's the general opinion about using a second lower dc to allow for partial success, much like tasks can have an easy and a hard dc? Alternately, I suppose the miss effects can be written into the power themselves, though that doesn't give room for partial success, keeping the results very binary.

Only if you define high magic games as ones with enhancement bonuses, that's a very specialized and subtle effect that plenty of magic items in stories don't seem to have. Personally, things like djinn powered airships and spell cannons seem more high magic to me, unless your arguing a high magic setting is one where folks are more dependent on magic. If you do in the enhancement bonuses, both high and low magic games still get the same bonus (because there is none), so you don't have to retool the math.

I would actually love to do away with Magic Weapons giving more than a +1. Is it a stronger item? Just make it a higher level, and make its features that much better. I wouldn't mind damage increasing as the weapon "levels," but get rid of the to-hit issue, and we get away from the constant grind for gear. Which I don't like, personally, as an individual.

In terms of skill checks, I say we look at Fate Core. It has, in my opinion, I great way around the binary. It has fail, tie, succeed, and succeed with style. Miss the DC and you fail or succeed at a major cost (lose a surge?), tie the DC and nothing happens or succeed at a minor cost (grant CA?), beat the DC and you do the thing, and if you beat the DC by a significant amount (5?) you get a good bound effect (recharge bonus perhaps, or a damage/effect benefit?)

Also, I'm all for splitting the skill from the stat. Endurance+Cha, because you can punch me all you want and I'm still going crack-wise at you.

In that case, I think breaking the discussion up into subtopics is great idea so you don't get topic burn out like we started seeing here. One of the biggest issues there would be making sure the sub-projects stay in synch, so you'd likely want someone in a coordinator role.

A wiki might work well for that purpose as they can have discussion pages built in. In fact, building it like an online SRD might not be a bad idea as I've found those to be great references from the player side of things.

Great idea, just need to make sure we are all in line with the basics before we split off.

So, I guess let's start with the most fundamental question: Are we rebuilding 4E, or are we building a new system inspired by it? Please when answering this question, briefly state your reasons why you answered it the way you did.

I'd be inclined to mimic large parts of it, and then gut the bloat, cut any extra to-hit bonuses we can, and adjust starting monster math to keep par with new PC numbers. Which I'll let others figure out.

It helps to remind oneself of one's priorities. :)

Love this.

How do we feel about using different Wizard "Specializations" as their class paths, rather than implement masteries? Things like Transmuter, Evoker, Illusionist, and maybe one other as the base paths?

One thing I'd do with a Wizard is let them learn any Arcane spell, they just don't get any features to enhance those spells. No restiance piercing the Sorcerer has, no Warlock Pact Boons, just the raw spell. The Spellbook is 90% of their feature. But I have more Arcane thoughts later...

Having more focused classes that are multiclass / hybrid friendly seems to have a lot of potential. I also think it encourages more descriptive class names, though that's a minor perk.

Yes please!

For example, on of my latest experiments is a "Wonder Wielder" class, inspired at least in part by actually rereading the Dying Earth short stories and realizing a lot of characters, even wizards, are essentially scavengers of arcane items and texts. Seeing as there's a folklore precedent for "hero who finds magic", I decided to see what happens if I run with that.

So why not have say "spellbinders" or "grimoirist" instead of the more generic wizard? Why not have a "ferals" who's animal form is their signature feature? For the calling on forces of nature aspect, setting up some mechanics for invoking a contract or pact could be interesting as well as having interesting potential for divine classes and warlocks.

Love these ideas. And I'll bring in my issue with Arcane classes. Wizard is a student, Sorcerer is naturally talented, Warlock made a Faustian deal. Great flavor, but mechanically, so what? So WHAT!? Warlock has the best mechanical separation, but Wizard and Sorcerer, since we are away from the horrible Vancain Magic *******************************, the only difference is role. So we break from tradition, and make something brand new. Sorcerer has a single spell focus and gets metamagic encounter powers, Wizard does, something else. I don't know, group chat. But we kill the Wizard.

I'd agree that artillery does need something to fell back on when down to single targets. Striker is a solid choice, but so is controller.

I look at it more of how you fight. You have melee, you have ranged. You have single target, you have multi target. Now some classes might be better, but no need to make it an actual role to me. Sub-role or secondary focus or whatever totally I'm behind, but not its own thing.

I'd totally play a "dervish" style holy man who's a whirlwind of devastation by letting divine excellence flow through them. Granted, that's a whole other lightly armored archetype. :smallsmile:

Let my hybrid/multiclass have fun. Though I'd also LOVE an Avenger variant that did this.

Come to think of it, a "preacher" type could be pretty could too. Have them command allied and rebuke foes, make at lot of their break and butter spoken actions with miracles being their big guns.

This runs into the issue of Paladin, Cleric, and White Mage. I like the ideal of a pure caster divine class. The Paladin makes sense, but not with the Cleric. Both use heavy armor, hit you in the face with a weapon, cast offensive spells of their gods, and heal. Since we broke Paladins from Lawful a Good, a wonderful thing, the Cleric is just a more castery version. I'd support a cloth caster Leader type, and certain gods give certain bonuses. War God, her bonus is melee proficiency. If you really need a pure divine caster in armor, you've got the Invoker.

Part of my problem with it is that the swordmage is explicitly a SWORDmage. When I was rebuilding a lot of the classes, I changed the name to battlemage and allowed them to use whatever melee weapon they felt like rather than forcing them to just use swords. I also built them more as melee wizards as opposed to the weird teleporting, sword throwing class swordmages are.

Yeah, let them use whatever weapon they want. But this is the iconic guy with a sword in one hand and a fireball in the other. It's the hero class of most all video games. It's the archetype I love the most. Does it need to be teleporty, no, but it's Nightcrawler, which is a fun option. Make one build a Fighter with spells, another the Wizard with a sword.

Now that we've moved past getting rid of ability scores, and I'm aware of that, I'm back in. Make it a score or a mod, but we need the Six in some way. It's just too useful.

Also, in regards to AC=Reflex. I played some Star Wars Saga, WotC's game half way between 3.5 and 4e. It had some fun ideas, the Threshold I particularly like but I don't see how we can use it. But it made all damage go against Reflex. And it became a god stat. They also had a messed up armor system. We need to keep AC and Reflex split.

And in regards to recharge powers, I hated it until we throw in Leaders buffing it. Now I'm all in. Perhaps we could use that, and the succeed with style mechanic I mentioned earlier to grant Daily level powers. Do realize this means that we are turning every class into Psionic augment style classes. I'm not against it, I like it, just realize that's what we're doing.