D&D 5e/Next Homebrewing a 6e based on 5e and 4e [Archive]

View Full Version : D&D 5e/Next Homebrewing a 6e based on 5e and 4e

noob

2021-07-01, 05:43 AM

Rakaydos

2021-07-01, 07:43 AM

Personally, I'd approach it as 4e, with a few fixes (see Surealistic's houserules, a common set of fixes used on these forums) and things that 5e did right.

I've asked about removing half-level bonuses from 4e, and the main breaking point seems to be with effectiveness of minions for their XP value, and the fact that odd monster levels dont do anything.

Even player levels are pretty much just feats and stats, too. So how about compressing 4e's 30 levels into 15 "6E" levels? Level 1 gets an expertise feat, a defensive feat, their class features, 2 feats of choice, 2 at wills, an encounter, daily, and their level 2 utility. "Prestige" (paragon) levels start at 6, and "Paragon" (epic) starts at 10. (possibly with a new super-epic at 15)

Combining martial practices and rituals into a single system, and giving even the fighter stuff like "find campsite" might help with the martial/caster divide on the utility side. Surge rituals should really help with this.

noob

2021-07-01, 08:25 AM

GalacticAxekick

2021-07-01, 03:07 PM

I did think that 5e have a whole bunch of dnd flaws that were fixed in 4e but that sadly were not permanently fixed because they threw the fixes in the garbage can.

So I am inviting people to try to put the best parts of 4e and 5e together.
Before you fix anything, you need to establish your goals. What you call "the best parts of 4e" are great systems for a turn-based strategy game, but terrible for a an open-ended storytelling system.

1: replace per short rest abilities by per encounter abilities and rebalance their numbers in function.(like giving the warlock 1 spell slot per encounter until level 5 where they get two spell slots per encounter)This is what I'm talking about.

Encounter powers give you a clear set of actions and resources to strategize around, like the clearly defined pieces and moves of chess board. They guarantee a good match. But encounter powers make no sense in the context of a story. "Why can I only shoot lasers while we are fighting? Why can I only shoot one per fight?"

Short rests make encounters awkward to strategize around, because you will often enter with too many or too few actions or resources. But short rests make perfect sense in the context of a story. "Shooting that laser is really exhausting. It made quick work of the barricades, but I won't be much help from here on out".

And 2: give a balanced amount of per short rest and per day abilities to most of the classes but fighter (because fighter must be playable without any sort of effort: the most complicated thing you should do is throw dice for the attack roll and the damage roll) because gms unbalancing the game by not using strict timers is something that happens when they are trying to do a campaign where the time management is not the focus.Why should the fighter be playable without any sort of effort?

noob

2021-07-01, 03:26 PM

Before you fix anything, you need to establish your goals. What you call "the best parts of 4e" are great systems for a turn-based strategy game, but terrible for a an open-ended storytelling system.

This is what I'm talking about.

4e is in fact billions of miles better for open ended story telling than 5e is because it gives you the same "figure out what to do" system for the gm and players but actually gives the same kinds of tools to the varied adventurers(skills, rituals and fighting) instead of doing like 5e that gives a 10km tall pile of tools to the bard and an half as big pile to the others and nearly nothing for the poor non skill using non casters.
In fact 4e also suggested fail forward design while 5e did not even consider it a possibility.

Encounter powers give you a clear set of actions and resources to strategize around, like the clearly defined pieces and moves of chess board. They guarantee a good match. But encounter powers make no sense in the context of a story. "Why can I only shoot lasers while we are fighting? Why can I only shoot one per fight?"

Short rests make encounters awkward to strategize around, because you will often enter with too many or too few actions or resources. But short rests make perfect sense in the context of a story. "Shooting that laser is really exhausting. It made quick work of the barricades, but I won't be much help from here on out".
Short rests are an atrocity for scenario building: it constrains which kind of scenario you can make your players play and that fact is what I mentioned as the reason short rests should die: the fact they have to bend the entire narrative to keep short rest and long rest based characters balanced with each other in terms of participation.
All what you said is 100% irrelevant to the reason why I want short rests to disappear: I want them to go because they force gms to make specific scenarios instead of them going "I do any scenario I want without any sort of constraint".
In fact short rests are incredibly trivial to strategize for players (get as many of them as physically possible and if you can take 8 short rests in a row take a long rest instead) and very hard to handle for the gm(impose time limits everywhere but manage so that it is still possible to do and also try to make the players aware of the time limits and try to make negative consequences for the time limits that makes sense and now I figured out I have 100 times less choice on what the scenario of the adventure is and now I also need to bash the minds of the players reapeatedly with the time constraints so that they are aware)

"Why can I only shoot lasers while we are fighting? Why can I only shoot one per fight?"
Encounters means "encountering a person or a situation or a point of interest" so you can also throw a laser at the chains of the prisoner you just encountered you want to free or you could if you suddenly found a trap throw a laser at it in fact most scenaristic reasons to do anything happens within encounters so no: you can not shoot only lasers while in a fight: you can throw them for nearly any reason.

Why should the fighter be playable without any sort of effort?
Because there is players which does not wants to do anything complicated during fights(ask 2d8hp for example) and providing a class enabling that is a good thing if you want to cater to that public: those who wants to play complicated classes just have to pick something else.
I mean do you think that you should be able to play piano before having the right to play dnd?
There should be an easy access to dnd that allows to more or less skip any sort of mental effort in the fighting phase and it is what 5e fighter is supposed to be and if we want a wide public dnd edition there should be an option to just say "tactics and strategy in fights does not interests me".

TinyMushroom

2021-07-01, 03:54 PM

Encounters means "encountering a person or a situation or a point of interest" so you can also throw a laser at the chains of the prisoner you just encountered you want to free or you could if you suddenly found a trap throw a laser at it in fact most scenaristic reasons to do anything happens within encounters so no: you can not shoot only lasers while in a fight: you can throw them for nearly any reason.

I think the game Lancer does this incredibly well, instead of "encounter" they use the word "scene". Then, a scene is just any stretch of time where the players are roughly doing the same thing with the same stakes, with the DM being able to determine whether that's a few minutes long or a few hours. Players can then use powers once per scene.

"Encounter" feels very limiting because we're already used to phrases like "random encounters" and that very much implies fighting. But the word scene is something we already know from theater and movies, so it's a lot broader.

MrStabby

2021-07-01, 05:35 PM

I think the game Lancer does this incredibly well, instead of "encounter" they use the word "scene". Then, a scene is just any stretch of time where the players are roughly doing the same thing with the same stakes, with the DM being able to determine whether that's a few minutes long or a few hours. Players can then use powers once per scene.

"Encounter" feels very limiting because we're already used to phrases like "random encounters" and that very much implies fighting. But the word scene is something we already know from theater and movies, so it's a lot broader.

Although if a scene could be 20 seconds of combat or a 4 day trek accross a desert then it also raises some questions about why abilities recharge in seconds sometimes and days at other times... and potentially why when your endurance trek is interupted by an ambush it means your powers come back.

Not insurmountable... but odd.

GalacticAxekick

2021-07-01, 07:00 PM

4e is in fact billions of miles better for open ended story telling than 5e is because [...]I haven't played enough 4e to have any strong opinions either way. Maybe it is a much better system for open ended storytelling.

Whether or not that is the case is completely besides my point.

I'm just asking you to clarify your goals. That way we can determine which fixes achieve them best.

Short rests are an atrocity for scenario building: it constrains which kind of scenario you can make your players play and that fact is what I mentioned as the reason short rests should die: the fact they have to bend the entire narrative to keep short rest and long rest based characters balanced with each other in terms of participation."Keeping different types of characters balanced from scenario to scenario" is a turn-based strategy concern. Different people shine in different circumstances, and so a storyteller should rarely feel the need to bend the narrative for balance.

Example (pulled from one of my games)

An "artefact" is placed in a museum. Outlanders ask the players to steal it, because it belongs to their still-living civilization. The players pull off the heist in less than an hour, mostly thanks to the cleric and the barbarian's powerful long-rest resources. But the players can't rest yet, because they're on the run and they need to return the McGuffin to the outlanders far away. The rogue and the warlock do much of the heavy lifting during the sleepless journey.

All what you said is 100% irrelevant to the reason why I want short rests to disappear: I want them to go because they force gms to make specific scenarios instead of them going "I do any scenario I want without any sort of constraint".You can do any scenario you want.

You can't do any scenario you want without certain characters shining brighter or struggling harder, of course. You can't string scenarios together without players getting tired (some more than others). You can't do any scenario you want without consequences. But that's the whole point of a story! Events have consequences! They aren't boards set, played, and swiped clean in a vacuum!

In fact short rests are incredibly trivial to strategize for players (get as many of them as physically possible and if you can take 8 short rests in a row take a long rest instead) and very hard to handle for the gm(impose time limits everywhere but manage so that it is still possible to do and also try to make the players aware of the time limits and try to make negative consequences for the time limits that makes sense and now I figured out I have 100 times less choice on what the scenario of the adventure is and now I also need to bash the minds of the players repeatedly with the time constraints so that they are aware)Yes, finding time for a short rest is trivial. But as a GM, I've never had a hard time handling this. I've never even tried to "handle" this. When players want to rest, the rest. If it's a good time to rest, they get away with it. If it's a bad time to rest, they suffer the consequences. I do not see the problem.

Encounters means "encountering a person or a situation or a point of interest" so you can also throw a laser at the chains of the prisoner you just encountered you want to free or you could if you suddenly found a trap throw a laser at it in fact most scenaristic reasons to do anything happens within encounters so no: you can not shoot only lasers while in a fight: you can throw them for nearly any reason.This is an excellent point. My mistake.

Because there is players which does not wants to do anything complicated during fights(ask 2d8hp for example) and providing a class enabling that is a good thing if you want to cater to that public: those who wants to play complicated classes just have to pick something else.Providing options for these players is sensible.

Marrying them to fighter is not sensible.

There are players do not want to do anything complicated, but who want to be sneaky thieves, priestly healers, and blasty magicians. There a players who want plenty of complexity, but who want to be charging knights, dueling ronin, sharpshooters and shield-bearers.

I mean do you think that you should be able to play piano before having the right to play dnd?
There should be an easy access to dnd that allows to more or less skip any sort of mental effort in the fighting phase and it is what 5e fighter is supposed to be and if we want a wide public dnd edition there should be an option to just say "tactics and strategy in fights does not interests me".The 5e fighter has the Champion archetype (a super-simple fighter that simply attacks), and then a slew more complicated archetypes to interest other players who want a more complicated experience.

This is the model I would recommend.

OACSNY97

2021-07-01, 08:50 PM

I did think that 5e have a whole bunch of dnd flaws that were fixed in 4e but that sadly were not permanently fixed because they threw the fixes in the garbage can.
So I am inviting people to try to put the best parts of 4e and 5e together.
I start by the following 1: replace per short rest abilities by per encounter abilities and rebalance their numbers in function.(like giving the warlock 1 spell slot per encounter until level 5 where they get two spell slots per encounter)
And 2: give a balanced amount of per short rest and per day abilities to most of the classes but fighter (because fighter must be playable without any sort of effort: the most complicated thing you should do is throw dice for the attack roll and the damage roll) because gms unbalancing the game by not using strict timers is something that happens when they are trying to do a campaign where the time management is not the focus.

Hi- someone else who is interested in 4e + 5e = 6e
Some friends and I from my IRL gaming group have been working off-and-on on a home brew project that I've been calling 4e + 5e = 6e, with some additional ideas borrowed from 13th Age, PF23, M&M, and Exalted. Overall, it got started as a fix to 4e and still uses a lot of 4e's basic assumptions- everyone will have At-Will, Encounter, and Daily "powers," attacker always does the rolling, and monster math should be easy for the GM, but we're adding 5e's strong subclass system and trying to get away from requiring magic weapons to keep up with the enemies' defenses.

I'm going to post a rough outline of our overall guidelines for discussion:
Design Goals:

Class based system with:

Manageable number of base classes (~12-15)

Martial
Fighter (includes Warlord to help Fighter have more breadth)
Rogue

Arcane
Wizard
Sorcerer
Bard
Artificer
Swordmage/Gish (needs a name)

Divine
Cleric
Paladin
Monk (?)

Primal
Druid
Ranger
Barbarian

Warlock - power source depends on patron
Psionic- still deciding if this is single class or a build for each of the other classes

Subclasses/archetypes provide either more specialization or breadth
Class + Subclass (or Subclass multiclass) + multiclass feat
Class defining features online no later than 2nd level and major gimmick at 1st level
1st level explicit tutorial level?
Class & subclass carry ~ ½ the load
Class defining features go in class, not subclass
4e style class roles (controller, defender, leader, striker) as guidelines

All classes should be able to cover multiple roles though different subclasses. Ideally all classes should have subclasses for at least 3, if not all 4 party roles
Note- if a class can cover all roles, shouldn’t do them all at once (ie 3e druid)
Note- some subclasses may not fit neatly in a role

Tiered Level based system:

21 to 30 levels total (probably on the higher side)
Need meaningful character choice at each level up - power, feat, ASI, class feature option
3 tiers of play:

1st Tier (Heroic) - “sword & sorcery” / fairytales were clever hero beats powerful foe

[Approx power scale: Gaston (Beauty & Beast) → Robin Hood & Merry Men and/or Fellowship of the Ring → King Arthur & Knights of the Round Table

2nd Tier (Paragon) - “wuxia”

Major Trojan War Heroes / Hercules

3rd Tier (Epic) - “demi-god” aka “gravity, what gravity?”

Hercules/Beowulf → Sun Wukong

Be explicit what kinds of stories each tier supports?
Have quick start rules for starting a character at the beginning of each tier?

Major 1st level choices:

Race/Species - who your parents were/who raised you
Background- who you were/how you go here
Class- what you do

Ability Scores, Attributes, Defenses:

All ability scores matter to all classes (as much as possible)
Ability score bonuses- gain from race and choose 1 from class - don’t stack
Cap ability scores by tier:

1st Tier (heroic) - stat cap = 20
2nd Tier (paragon) - stat cap = 25
3rd Tier (epic) - stat cap = 30

3 Defenses total- Fort, Reflex/AC, Will (similar to 4e)

Merge AC & Reflex and call dodge or reflex?
Attacker always rolls against opponent’s/target’s defense
Use 4e style Monster Vault Math for enemies (scale with level)
PC’s all use ¾ BAB to keep to hit target numbers for at at level enemy fairly consistent throughout the game.

Powers and Power Sources:

Separate powers lists by either power source or class
Power sources should be distinct
Martial: improved action economy & highest number of attacks, most skills, maneuvers, precision & single target
Rogue- improve 5e cunning action
Arcane: mostly explicit spells, healing from life drain/life transference, magic item creation
Divine: most healing (usually in burst form), ally friendly offense, few non-instantaneous powers
Primal: mostly effects over time via spirits (DOTs, HOTs, etc), lots of self-enhancement or pets
Psionic: subtly, hard to know where it’s coming from, leans slightly controller

Skills & Etc:

Non-magical ways for dealing with magic
Good skill system with all skills being generally useful

Numeric skill DCs will be listed in book

Good crafting rules
Good tool & implement rules

Survivability

Starting HP (w/ average CON) is at minimum 1 greater than the maximum crit damage for a 1st level monster.

noob

2021-07-02, 03:09 AM

This is an excellent point. My mistake.

Providing options for these players is sensible.

Marrying them to fighter is not sensible.

There are players do not want to do anything complicated, but who want to be sneaky thieves, priestly healers, and blasty magicians. There a players who want plenty of complexity, but who want to be charging knights, dueling ronin, sharpshooters and shield-bearers.

The 5e fighter has the Champion archetype (a super-simple fighter that simply attacks), and then a slew more complicated archetypes to interest other players who want a more complicated experience.

This is the model I would recommend.
I said "the fighter" not the fighter subclasses.
More complicated martials should be in another class: 5e design for fighter subclasses was extremely constrained because fighters without a subclass gets extra attack a ton of times and a slew of extra asis and so you should not give too many features to them which is why none of the fighter subclasses have a complexity remotely similar to stuff that is not a fighter subclass except for the casting one which is often considered too powerful as giving too much stuff.

In most dnd system sneaking is super complicated and involving 20 different rules and 5 different tricks just for doing one basic thing.
Like the thief looks out for a patrol that will cross a lowly illuminated corridor while hidden in a shadow but they do not have dark vision so now you have to look up for heavily shadowed area rules and lowly illuminated areas rules and spotting rules and sneaking rules.
Now the guard is coming and it happens the guard have a dog and is wearing full plate so the guard is making a lot of noise so you check the rules for spotting someone based on noise and the ones based on sight and try to see if the rogue sees the guard or hears it or both and reciprocally but the guard is moving and the rogue is still which means that they have different modifiers and now you think "maybe the guard in full plate making noise should have disadvantage for hearing the rogue" then now the dog might smell the rogue so you check wikipedia to see how far a dog should smell and now realise you should have managed wind currents too.
And if the rogue did put themselves near the wall maybe you should also have used partial cover rules when the guard was crossing the corner.
Sneaking is quickly horribly complicated between the rules in the game and the added sanity checks done by gms mid game.

As for simple blasting mage it is merely a refluff of fighter and I was planning on making healing cost hit dice so healer as a role would have vanished.

I haven't played enough 4e to have any strong opinions either way. Maybe it is a much better system for open ended storytelling.

Whether or not that is the case is completely besides my point.

I'm just asking you to clarify your goals. That way we can determine which fixes achieve them best.

"Keeping different types of characters balanced from scenario to scenario" is a turn-based strategy concern. Different people shine in different circumstances, and so a storyteller should rarely feel the need to bend the narrative for balance.

Example (pulled from one of my games)

An "artefact" is placed in a museum. Outlanders ask the players to steal it, because it belongs to their still-living civilization. The players pull off the heist in less than an hour, mostly thanks to the cleric and the barbarian's powerful long-rest resources. But the players can't rest yet, because they're on the run and they need to return the McGuffin to the outlanders far away. The rogue and the warlock do much of the heavy lifting during the sleepless journey.

You can do any scenario you want.

You can't do any scenario you want without certain characters shining brighter or struggling harder, of course. You can't string scenarios together without players getting tired (some more than others). You can't do any scenario you want without consequences. But that's the whole point of a story! Events have consequences! They aren't boards set, played, and swiped clean in a vacuum!

Yes, finding time for a short rest is trivial. But as a GM, I've never had a hard time handling this. I've never even tried to "handle" this. When players want to rest, the rest. If it's a good time to rest, they get away with it. If it's a bad time to rest, they suffer the consequences. I do not see the problem.

No you can not do any scenario you want.
For example you want a scenario lasting one hour total where the adventurers does a lightning blitz against occupation forces and kill 50 different groups of opponents before the hq is aware so that the bigger army they are spearheading can act better for liberating the region.
Due to the short rest system that scenario can not be fun because they would need a rest between the 50 fights or you would make all the fights not need any particular ability and therefore need to make the monsters very weak and the whole thing would be unfun to play.
Meanwhile if I want to have the players explore ruins without time constraints: it will just end up being two players taking 90% of the screen time while the others just sit because their participation would be negligible.
And tiredness still exists with 4e designed powers because 1: dailies are limited 2: healing is limited so you still can do attrition scenarios when using per encounter powers.
I prefer to have the consequences to be based on what the players do rather on the strictness of the timers I impose on them.

Rakaydos

2021-07-02, 06:27 AM

Hi- someone else who is interested in 4e + 5e = 6e
Some friends and I from my IRL gaming group have been working off-and-on on a home brew project that I've been calling 4e + 5e = 6e, with some additional ideas borrowed from 13th Age, PF23, M&M, and Exalted. Overall, it got started as a fix to 4e and still uses a lot of 4e's basic assumptions- everyone will have At-Will, Encounter, and Daily "powers," attacker always does the rolling, and monster math should be easy for the GM, but we're adding 5e's strong subclass system and trying to get away from requiring magic weapons to keep up with the enemies' defenses.

I'm going to post a rough outline of our overall guidelines for discussion:
Design Goals:

Class based system with:

Manageable number of base classes (~12-15)
[LIST]
Martial
Fighter (includes Warlord to help Fighter have more breadth)
Rogue

Arcane
Wizard
Sorcerer
Bard
Artificer
Swordmage/Gish (needs a name)

Divine
Cleric
Paladin
Monk (?)

Primal
Druid
Ranger
Barbarian

Warlock - power source depends on patron
Psionic- still deciding if this is single class or a build for each of the other classes

Hmm. If I were cutting down the class list...

Warrior- Fighter, barbarian, Warlord, archery ranger, cavalier, the warrior has a broad array of nonmagic abilities. Probably give it the ranger pet too, at least as an option, and access to the most mundane of ritual magic. (Mending is more a martial thing anyway) A native pet-mount slot is a good way to incorporate mid-tier flight, as well.

Rogue- Thief, bard, swashbuckler, illusionist, assasssin, the rogue uses whatever tricks are easiest to accomplish a task. Native half caster with a more subtle spell list.

Patronous- Cleric and Warlock. Your powers are dependant on your ability to keep another entity happy. Negotiate to change up spell lists.

Sourceror- warmage, druid, some psion influences. Lots of blasting of various types, not so great on utility

Gish- defensive and utility magics, some supporting swordplay

Sage- mentalist, bard, with access to "forbidden" magics.

OACSNY97

2021-07-02, 08:17 AM

Hmm. If I were cutting down the class list...

Warrior- Fighter, barbarian, Warlord, archery ranger, cavalier, the warrior has a broad array of nonmagic abilities. Probably give it the ranger pet too, at least as an option, and access to the most mundane of ritual magic. (Mending is more a martial thing anyway) A native pet-mount slot is a good way to incorporate mid-tier flight, as well.

Rogue- Thief, bard, swashbuckler, illusionist, assasssin, the rogue uses whatever tricks are easiest to accomplish a task. Native half caster with a more subtle spell list.

Patronous- Cleric and Warlock. Your powers are dependant on your ability to keep another entity happy. Negotiate to change up spell lists.

Sourceror- warmage, druid, some psion influences. Lots of blasting of various types, not so great on utility

Gish- defensive and utility magics, some supporting swordplay

Sage- mentalist, bard, with access to "forbidden" magics.

We'd considered cutting down the class list in a similar way, but decided against for the following reasons:
1) Power source will be the strictest division between base classes. If you change power source, you change class (discounting multiclassing).
Forex, we want our Ranger to be a lot more explicitly "magical" than the 4e version as well as having it be the designated pet class, so we're using 4e's Seeker and 5e's Swarm Keeper Ranger plus Beastmaster as inspiration. 4e's Two-Weapon and Archer Rangers are Fighter subclasses in our homebrew.

2) Ability make classes more mechanically distinct.
In our project, all classes should have at-will, encounter, and daily resources, which class emphasizes what resources will vary. We were going to have Wizard and Sorcerer be subclasses in single overall Mage class, but after playing with the idea, we decided to split them back up. In our current thinking, Wizard will get at-will cantrips and daily spells (pretty much straight out of 5e) but with the ability to refresh a daily on a short rest/encounter basis, while Sorcerer will be a build-a-spell class with a mana pool and a list of targets, ranges, and effects with differing costs.

3) Two different kinds of multiclassing (and level by level multiclassing is out).
4e style multiclass feats for minor dips and proficiencies and subclass multiclassing for more hybrid type characters. In the subclass version, you select a subclass from a different base class at the cost of not getting one from your initial base class. As such, we're not sure if super broad base classes will work for how we want to handle hybrid characters.

GalacticAxekick

2021-07-02, 11:58 AM

I said "the fighter" not the fighter subclasses.I know what you said.

You said that some players want simplicity, and that the fighter should be a simple class accessible to them.

I'm saying that some of the players who want simplicity don't want to be fighters, and some of the players who want to be fighters don't want simplicity. I'm suggesting that every class should have a simple subclass.

I understand that making a simple rogue, for example, seems difficult, because stealth itself is a complicated system! But it's complicated for the GM. Even if the GM has to check for dim light, obscurement, the thief's perception and stealth, the guard's perception and stealth, the dog's perception and stealth, armor penalties, and movement penalties... all the player has to do is roll Stealth and add his big big bonus.

5e design for fighter subclasses was extremely constrained because fighters without a subclass gets extra attack a ton of times and a slew of extra asis and so you should not give too many features to them which is why none of the fighter subclasses have a complexity remotely similar to stuff that is not a fighter subclass except for the casting one which is often considered too powerful as giving too much stuff.I agree! The 5e fighter base class is very powerful, which leaves very little design space for the subclasses.

I'm not suggesting that you copy-paste the 5e fighter. I'm saying that you keep the idea of having simple subclasses and complex subclasses within one class. That way, players who want simplicity or complexity can play any class they want!

No you can not do any scenario you want.

For example you want a scenario lasting one hour total where the adventurers does a lightning blitz against occupation forces and kill 50 different groups of opponents before the hq is aware so that the bigger army they are spearheading can act better for liberating the region.

Due to the short rest system that scenario can not be fun because they would need a rest between the 50 fights or you would make all the fights not need any particular ability and therefore need to make the monsters very weak and the whole thing would be unfun to play.I ran an almost identical scenario in 5e! A castle was being occupied by enemy forces (a coalition of chromatic dragons, actually). The players had to infiltrate the castle and take out as many dragon-guards as possible so that, when the players' army arrived in a short while, they would be able to lay seize, retake the castle and free the townsfolk.

The players pulled it off without short rests! The fights required strategic and creative use of the players' abilities, so they were challenging and fun, but the fights didn't require constant use of short- or long-rest abilities. Those powerful, limited abilities were mostly used to save the players after they were screwed by the dice, or to save them after a strategic blunder. And when those resources ran out close to the end of the scenario, the players shifted their focus to covering each other's backs and staying alive until the army's arrival in under 10 rounds (1 minute).

This scenario would've been just as fun with an encounter-power system. The players would've had more options in each fight, and would've participated more equally. But they also would've lost the drama of holding back during a fight to save energy for the next one, heroically exhausting themselves to save their allies, and fighting to protect their exhausted allies in turn.

That's the gameplay-vs-story tradeoff I'm talking about. Both are good! I just wanted to know which you're aiming for, and the sense I'm getting is that you're gameplay-first.

Meanwhile if I want to have the players explore ruins without time constraints: it will just end up being two players taking 90% of the screen time while the others just sit because their participation would be negligible.If there are no time constraints, why can't the players take both short and long rests?

I prefer to have the consequences to be based on what the players do rather on the strictness of the timers I impose on them.Cool! Again, this gives me a good idea of what you mean by "fix".

noob

2021-07-02, 01:08 PM

Damon_Tor

2021-07-02, 03:05 PM

What I miss most from 4e: Non-Armor Defenses (ie "NADs") in place of saving throws. It's a cleaner system, where it's always the person producing the action who does the rolling. It also doesn't have to change the math at all.

Also minions: minions were great.

As to encounter powers vs short-rest resources, I guess I'm not seeing the veracity/simulationist argument against reducing short rests to 5 mins. In 4e, encounter powers didn't return after an arbitrary "encounter" was over, they very specifically required a short rest of 5 minutes. I don't see why a monk couldn't take 5 minutes to recharge his Ki instead of an hour. What actual difference does it make?

GalacticAxekick

2021-07-06, 11:14 AM

What I miss most from 4e: Non-Armor Defenses (ie "NADs") in place of saving throws. It's a cleaner system, where it's always the person producing the action who does the rolling. It also doesn't have to change the math at all.I'm 100% with you here.

Also minions: minions were great.Minions were enemies who went down in one hit, right?

From a simulationist perspective, it makes the most sense if a sufficiently powerful player treats any sufficiently weak enemy as a minion. After all, one man's faceless goon is another man's deadly assassin. A one-punch knockout for Batman is a struggle to the death for... his parents.

But from a turn based strategy perspective, minions are just a piece of a the combat puzzle. The fun comes from knowing they go down in one hit and needing to deal with a ton of them, or a few in key positions. Complicating that by designing minions based on player build is a lot of trouble.

So I think this comes down to your vision of 6e.

In 4e, encounter powers didn't return after an arbitrary "encounter" was over, they very specifically required a short rest of 5 minutes.That's an important detail! If encounter powers dont literally recover after the encounter, but after a 5 minute rest, then they make simulationist sense! Really, the only difference between them and short rest features is how quickly they recover.

GalacticAxekick

2021-07-06, 12:28 PM

We'd considered cutting down the class list in a similar way, but decided against for the following reasons:
1) Power source will be the strictest division between base classes. If you change power source, you change class (discounting multiclassing).I think this is the most sensible way to handle class division. But unlike 4e (which has martial/primal/arcane/divine/psionic as the power source division, I would use a simple magic/mundane split, and then further divide classes by how they acquired and continue to develop their powers.

Innate Magic (Sorcerer). Sorcerers don't understand magic anymore than most people understand biology, but they embody it nonetheless. Whether a sorcerer belongs to a magical bloodline, was infused with magical energy, or simply has an intuitive knack performing magic, he casts spells as if flexing a muscle, by exercising passionate willpower.
Learned Magic (Wizard) Wizards lack innate magical power, but hone their minds into magical instruments with study and practice, the same way that human beings have no natural tools or weapons, but study crafts and martial arts to hone the body into the tools or weapons or their choice. Wizards cast spells as if performing a technique, exercising intelligent focus.
Borrowed Magic (Cleric) Clerics neither understand magic nor harbour it within them. Instead, they borrow magic from higher powers (gods, fiends, ancestors, nature spirits or more). Warlocks and Druids are Clerics. Clerics cast spells by invoking their masters, which requires neither willpower nor technique. But Clerics are also at the mercy of their masters, who can strip their power away at any time.

Innate Mundane (Barbarian). The Barbarian is a gifted warrior. Thanks to his extraordinary strength, senses and will-power, the Barbarian overpowers, outpaces & outlasts the competition. Outside of combat, Barbarians a rely purely on their gifts to serve as lookouts, trackers, and charismatic personalities.
Learned Mundane (Fighter). The Fighter is a skilled warrior. By cultivating and embodying vast technical and tactical knowledge, the Fighter can outmanoeuvre stronger, faster and tougher enemies. Outside of combat, Fighters train themselves in watching and tracking, diplomacy and intimidation, medicine and engineering, etc. Rangers and Warlords are Fighters.
Opportunistic Mundane (Rogue). The Rogue is a cheater. With neither the raw power nor the technical skill to overcome most challenges head on, a Rogue masters the art of pressing unfair advantages. Outside of combat, Rogues are stealthy voyeurs and subtle snoops, fast-talking hustlers and manipulative liars, saboteurs and thieves, etc.

Innate classes (Sorcerers/Barbarians) rely heavily on exerting their muscle and willpower. They use encounter and daily powers to get ahead, and fall behind without them.

Learned classes (Wizards/Fighters) rely heavily on tactics and technique. They rely mostly on thoughtful use of at-will powers to keep up. Their encounter and daily powers are on the weaker end of things, but only because they aren't necessary.

The Cleric can change powers from day to day (much like a 5e Cleric), lending her versatility similar to a Learned class across days, but narrowness similar to an Innate class within days. The Cleric has good at-wills (like the Wizard) and good encounters/dailies (like the Sorcerer) but they are all extremely circumstantial and must be selected carefully.

The Rogue's at-will powers are all very circumstantial, and the rogue's encounter and daily powers CREATE circumstances. The Rogue is satisfied with at-will powers as along as the Rogue has situations to capitalize on, but when the Rogue doesn't, the Rogue is forced to use encounters/dailies to create them.

Rakaydos

2021-07-06, 12:38 PM

GalacticAxekick

2021-07-06, 01:02 PM

OACSNY97

2021-07-06, 07:01 PM

I fundamentally dislike the "mundane/magic split", as it becomes an excuse the the power difference between the two we have come to expect from every D&D edition. Let every fighter have access to some rote armor-enhancement magic they taught in fighter college, let every rogue have some magic tricks to make their job easier. If magic exists, let everyone partake, and let the AMFs fall where they may.

I also dislike the hard "mundane/magic split." I think it fundamentally pushes the "mundane" classes into being "muggles," implying that they are not equals to the magical types. 4e calling it martial power source was less off-putting, as it wasn't relegating the non-casters to "plebeians" and permanent second class status, by acknowledging their talents and training.

On the other hand, by suggesting the enhancements/tricks must be magical enhancement or magical tricks confused the issue. The martial classes do need a boost, especially at high levels, but I think packaging it with less magical terminology will help.

I agree that the power gap between mundane and magic classes is frustrating.

But by giving martial classes magic, you arent solving the problem. You're narrowing the variety of characters we can play. Youre going from "You must play a magician to stay on top" to "You must play a magician".

At the very least, let people play mundane characters.

Ideally, buff these characters until they can keep up.

I agree, buff the martial classes, but see my comments above about "mundane." This leads me to the fundamental question, how far can martials go before they become magical?
Is it magical for:

A fighter or rogue to run across water? Or balance on smoke?
A martial character to jump to the horizon or to the top of a tall cliff?
A strong character to destroy a building like Samson? Or hold up the sky like Hercules?
A fighter or rogue to cut a hole in "reality" and open a window to another plane?
A fighter to have nearly superhuman resistances to magical effects (i.e., AD&D's favorable saving throws.)
A rogue to hide in his/her own shadow?
A martial character to make such a powerful attack that it can cut/damage a more distant enemy or multiple enemies?

If martial characters can't do some significant portion of these things at high level, the only remaining choices are to nerf the casters hard or to end the game at much lower levels than modern DnD mostly attempts to.

OACSNY97

2021-07-06, 07:59 PM

I think this is the most sensible way to handle class division. But unlike 4e (which has martial/primal/arcane/divine/psionic as the power source division, I would use a simple magic/mundane split, and then further divide classes by how they acquired and continue to develop their powers.
I like 4e's differentiation of the power sources and I would be sorry to collapse it down to a binary choice. Having multiple distinct power sources, including martial, raised fighter/rogue/warlord/4e ranger up from being "some dude" to actual effective powerhouses in and of themselves, and it allowed some nice, if underdeveloped, flavor/world-building space for the casters.

Innate Magic (Sorcerer). Sorcerers don't understand magic anymore than most people understand biology, but they embody it nonetheless. Whether a sorcerer belongs to a magical bloodline, was infused with magical energy, or simply has an intuitive knack performing magic, he casts spells as if flexing a muscle, by exercising passionate willpower.
No objections to this.

Learned Magic (Wizard) Wizards lack innate magical power, but hone their minds into magical instruments with study and practice, the same way that human beings have no natural tools or weapons, but study crafts and martial arts to hone the body into the tools or weapons or their choice. Wizards cast spells as if performing a technique, exercising intelligent focus.
No major objections to this.

Borrowed Magic (Cleric) Clerics neither understand magic nor harbour it within them. Instead, they borrow magic from higher powers (gods, fiends, ancestors, nature spirits or more). Warlocks and Druids are Clerics. Clerics cast spells by invoking their masters, which requires neither willpower nor technique. But Clerics are also at the mercy of their masters, who can strip their power away at any time.
Theurgy/borrowed magic as a concept is fine; however, clerics and warlocks are not the same thing or the same class. There are some similarities between clerics and warlocks in that they both gain power from a more powerful being, but their relationships are fundamentally different and can grow more so over time.

(Need to design theurges, especially cleric, from being involuntarily depowered by antagonistic or clueless GMs.)

Innate Mundane (Barbarian). The Barbarian is a gifted warrior. Thanks to his extraordinary strength, senses and will-power, the Barbarian overpowers, outpaces & outlasts the competition. Outside of combat, Barbarians a rely purely on their gifts to serve as lookouts, trackers, and charismatic personalities.
Major objections to this. I think that Barbarians are also a theurgist class. They should borrow their power and Rage from the spirits that ride them. This flows from the mythology of the Norse berserker, literally "bear shirt," who were believed to be possessed by or channeling the spirit of the bear whose skin they wore. To me, barbarian is the definitional primal class.

Learned Mundane (Fighter). The Fighter is a skilled warrior. By cultivating and embodying vast technical and tactical knowledge, the Fighter can outmanoeuvre stronger, faster and tougher enemies. Outside of combat, Fighters train themselves in watching and tracking, diplomacy and intimidation, medicine and engineering, etc. Rangers and Warlords are Fighters.
No major objections to this.
Are you referring to 4e rangers? If so, yes, I agree, they are skirmisher fighters. If you are referring to 2e,3e, and 5e quasi-magical rangers, then no, they are primal and see barbarian above.

Opportunistic Mundane (Rogue). The Rogue is a cheater. With neither the raw power nor the technical skill to overcome most challenges head on, a Rogue masters the art of pressing unfair advantages. Outside of combat, Rogues are stealthy voyeurs and subtle snoops, fast-talking hustlers and manipulative liars, saboteurs and thieves, etc.

Class could be enlarged to encompass a few more stereotypes but overall, no major objections to this.

Innate classes (Sorcerers/Barbarians) rely heavily on exerting their muscle and willpower. They use encounter and daily powers to get ahead, and fall behind without them.

Learned classes (Wizards/Fighters) rely heavily on tactics and technique. They rely mostly on thoughtful use of at-will powers to keep up. Their encounter and daily powers are on the weaker end of things, but only because they aren't necessary.

The Cleric can change powers from day to day (much like a 5e Cleric), lending her versatility similar to a Learned class across days, but narrowness similar to an Innate class within days. The Cleric has good at-wills (like the Wizard) and good encounters/dailies (like the Sorcerer) but they are all extremely circumstantial and must be selected carefully.

The Rogue's at-will powers are all very circumstantial, and the rogue's encounter and daily powers CREATE circumstances. The Rogue is satisfied with at-will powers as along as the Rogue has situations to capitalize on, but when the Rogue doesn't, the Rogue is forced to use encounters/dailies to create them.
Not where I was going with my 4e+5e homebrew. I'm of the opinion that it's unbalancing to have classes recharge on very different schedules. See long and frequent discussions on 5e subforum discussing the long vs. short rest classes and how to make them work in the same party.

I propose a modified AED power schedule for all classes. Forex:
Wizard: At-will cantrips, daily spells, and encounter recharge of a limited number of spells.
Barbarian: At-will basic attacks, limited number of Rages per day, each Rage lasts the encounter and has a set of specific abilities.
Fighter: At-will basic attacks, encounter maneuvers, and daily action economy breaches and/or stances
Cleric: At-will cantrips/benedictions, encounter channel divinities, daily spells

GalacticAxekick

2021-07-06, 11:54 PM

I agree, buff the martial classes, but see my comments above about "mundane." This leads me to the fundamental question, how far can martials go before they become magical?
Is it magical for:

A fighter or rogue to run across water? Or balance on smoke? Run across water, sure. Call that strength and technique. Balance on smoke, absolutely not. Balancing on smoke is not merely difficult, but nonsensical, and only magic can accomplish nonsense.
A martial character to jump to the horizon or to the top of a tall cliff? A Barbarian might be able to do these things, since their schtick is superhuman physical fitness. A Fighter or Rogue certainly cant.
A strong character to destroy a building like Samson? Or hold up the sky like Hercules? Samson is a Cleric. But yeah, the Barbarian can destroy a building using raw power, and the others can do so using precision. No one can do the latter, unless the sky on your setting is a tangible firmament, as it is in Greek myth. In which case the Barbarian can do it
A fighter or rogue to cut a hole in "reality" and open a window to another plane? This is ambiguous, because we are no longer discussing the world as we know it. But I would allow it.
A fighter to have nearly superhuman resistances to magical effects (i.e., AD&D's favorable saving throws.)Of course!
A rogue to hide in his/her own shadow? No, because nonsense.
A martial character to make such a powerful attack that it can cut/damage a more distant enemy or multiple enemies? Of course. Chalk that up to tremendous force or precision.

GalacticAxekick

2021-07-07, 12:26 AM

I like 4e's differentiation of the power sources and I would be sorry to collapse it down to a binary choice. Having multiple distinct power sources, including martial, raised fighter/rogue/warlord/4e ranger up from being "some dude" to actual effective powerhouses in and of themselves, and it allowed some nice, if underdeveloped, flavor/world-building space for the casters.You can use "martial" instead of "mundane" is that makes you feel better.

What will elevate the martial classes isnt the title we give them, but the powers we permit them.

Theurgy/borrowed magic as a concept is fine; however, clerics and warlocks are not the same thing or the same class. There are some similarities between clerics and warlocks in that they both gain power from a more powerful being, but their relationships are fundamentally different and can grow more so over time.I would argue that the precise nature of the relationship is irrelevant to the class.

Just like the nature of Sorcerer's origin (bloodline/infusion/talent) does not change that they are a Sorcerer.

Just like the nature of a Fighter's training (military school, hunter/marauder lifestyle, collected experience from street fights) does not change that they are a Fighter.

I can imagine trusted Clerics who faithfully do their masters' work with their masters' help, Clerics who are merely upholding covenants and contracts for gain, Clerics who were given power against their will and the obligation to complete a mission "or else", and Clerics who were given power, no strings attached, by forces who feel love or obligation to them.

At the end of the day, its borrowed power, and itll be represented by the same "borrowing" mechanics.

Major objections to this. I think that Barbarians are also a theurgist class. They should borrow their power and Rage from the spirits that ride them. This flows from the mythology of the Norse berserker, literally "bear shirt," who were believed to be possessed by or channeling the spirit of the bear whose skin they wore. What you have described, to me, is a Cleric whose patron focuses on enhancing his strength, fortitude and mettle. A War Cleric. Viking berserkers (if they are channeling spirits and not tapping into their own potential) are War Clerics. The biblical Samson is a War Cleric. Using borrowed, magical power (Theurgy) to swing a stick harder (fight war) makes you a War Cleric.

Conan the Barbarian is a Barbarian, and not a War Cleric, because he's just that tough.

falconflicker

2021-07-07, 10:02 AM

Conan the Barbarian is a Barbarian, and not a War Cleric, because he's just that tough.

Just to note, Conan is a skilled and well trained warrior, and is a supremely tactical combatant.
While he is generally stronger than any other human he encounters, he tends to tactically outmaneuver any monster or magic user he fights.
Going by his actions in the books, the Barbarian's general features (Rage) are not applicable to Conan, who's a barbarian in that he's from an area outside of what is considered civilization, not in any way that affects what he does or how.

noob

2021-07-07, 10:20 AM

Just to note, Conan is a skilled and well trained warrior, and is a supremely tactical combatant.
While he is generally stronger than any other human he encounters, he tends to tactically outmaneuver any monster or magic user he fights.
Going by his actions in the books, the Barbarian's general features (Rage) are not applicable to Conan, who's a barbarian in that he's from an area outside of what is considered civilization, not in any way that affects what he does or how.

He is using his barbarian not the 5e or 3e one.

The Barbarian is a gifted warrior. Thanks to his extraordinary strength, senses and will-power, the Barbarian overpowers, outpaces & outlasts the competition. Outside of combat, Barbarians a rely purely on their gifts to serve as lookouts, trackers, and charismatic personalities.
No mentions about rage at all.

GalacticAxekick

2021-07-07, 10:25 AM

Just to note, Conan is a skilled and well trained warrior, and is a supremely tactical combatant.
While he is generally stronger than any other human he encounters, he tends to tactically outmaneuver any monster or magic user he fights.
Going by his actions in the books, the Barbarian's general features (Rage) are not applicable to Conan, who's a barbarian in that he's from an area outside of what is considered civilization, not in any way that affects what he does or how.Excellent point! His lack of Rsge and tremendous training suggest that he's a Fighter class wise.

Thanks for correcting me! But you see what I mean about Clerical warriors vs martial warriors, right?

GalacticAxekick

2021-07-07, 10:30 AM

He is using his barbarian not the 5e or 3e one. [...] No mentions about rage at all. Rage is a mechanic that represents the enhanced strength, durability and mental toughness of a Barbarian, and how those powers can be exhausted.

Its not specifically in my description if q Barbarian, but it's my go-to way to represent the class for sure! And Conan lacking it is a great hint that he's more of a Fighter

But I digress. I only mentioned Conan because I needed a martial counterpart to theurgic warriors. I was trying to explain how a Barbarian empowered by spirits has more in common with most Clerics than most martials (if class is a synonym for power source)

falconflicker

2021-07-07, 12:26 PM

GalacticAxekick

2021-07-07, 12:58 PM

That's fine, and thank you for responding quickly and politely.

I just feel that the use of the word Barbarian (which in most contexts outside of RPGs means foreigner) is insufficient to justify a character being stated as using the Barbarian class, which is modeled after the Nordic Berserkers.You're completely right!

Also, Rage being temporary makes it a poor representation of enhanced strength, durability and mental toughness imho.The way I see it, technique is inexhaustible. I'm a wrestler by training, and as long as I use technique to take my opponent down, pin him and submit him, I can wrestle for literal hours without getting tired.

But strength is exhaustible. Willpower is exhaustible. If I use brute force to take my opponent down and hold him down, or if I use willpower to withstand a submission hold, I'm running out of gas in 5 minutes.

If I were superhumanly powerful, I could certainly exert myself for longer. But I'm still exerting myself which is exhausting by definition.

On the note about "Clerical Warriors vs Martial Warriors," sure one (the Totem Warrior style Barbarian) is empowered, but I don't quite get how you could really use the same features to represent a spellcastery miracle worker and an empowered beat-stick.Just give a Cleric cantrips and spells that enhance his physical abilities. Faster movement, increased durability, harder hits that deal more damage, knock enemies prone and stun them. Maybe a version of the Paladin's Smite (if we're using the 5e framework).

falconflicker

2021-07-07, 05:19 PM

The way I see it, technique is inexhaustible. I'm a wrestler by training, and as long as I use technique to take my opponent down, pin him and submit him, I can wrestle for literal hours without getting tired.

But strength is exhaustible. Willpower is exhaustible. If I use brute force to take my opponent down and hold him down, or if I use willpower to withstand a submission hold, I'm running out of gas in 5 minutes.

If I were superhumanly powerful, I could certainly exert myself for longer. But I'm still exerting myself which is exhausting by definition.

I haven't seriously wrestled, but I have fenced competitively, so switching gears a little bit to what I'm more familiar with.

I think we can both agree that fencing is 90%+ technique, as exerting more force than necessary to move the foil is generally frowned upon, as you don't want to injure your opponent.

The thing is, fencing is an athletic activity, and, like any athletic activity, will fatigue and exhaust the body. It takes more for some than for others. I got tired after about 5 minutes, but most of the club would take at least one break every 30 minutes.

Just give a Cleric cantrips and spells that enhance his physical abilities. Faster movement, increased durability, harder hits that deal more damage, knock enemies prone and stun them. Maybe a version of the Paladin's Smite (if we're using the 5e framework).

OK, that was sort of successful, but it seems an awfully convoluted way of going about that, and runs into the problem that it would render a properly built "War Cleric" superior in basically every way to a Martial warrior, in that they can be the Warrior's physical superior, and still do non-physical magic.

noob

2021-07-07, 05:25 PM

OK, that was sort of successful, but it seems an awfully convoluted way of going about that, and runs into the problem that it would render a properly built "War Cleric" superior in basically every way to a Martial warrior, in that they can be the Warrior's physical superior, and still do non-physical magic.
A cleric is mostly based on at will abilities with non at wills being situational(according to the description made of the class) and they can trade around their abilities from day to day.

OACSNY97

2021-07-07, 07:48 PM

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly and I appreciate the point by point response.

A fighter or rogue to run across water? Or balance on smoke? Run across water, sure. Call that strength and technique. Balance on smoke, absolutely not. Balancing on smoke is not merely difficult, but nonsensical, and only magic can accomplish nonsense.
Ok, so implausible abilities are fine, but totally ridiculous/physically impossible ones are not. But what happens if you substitute clouds for smoke? Why shouldn't a fighter or rogue be able to interact with a silver dragon or a cloud giant in its natural habitat without outside assistance in the form of a magical team member, magical gear, or a (possibly magical) flying mount?

A martial character to jump to the horizon or to the top of a tall cliff? A Barbarian might be able to do these things, since their schtick is superhuman physical fitness. A Fighter or Rogue certainly cant.
I think we have fundamentally different opinions of what the defining features of the barbarian, fighter, and rogue classes are.
So what about modeling the cartoon character Samurai Jack? He has extensive training in the art and science of war, and amazing physical conditioning. This physical training included running and jumping around a forest with a boulder strapped to his back, which once he removed it, he could jump from the ground to tree canopy in a single bound. Should a fighter be able to replicate Samurai Jack's "jump good," feat?

A strong character to destroy a building like Samson? Or hold up the sky like Hercules? Samson is a Cleric. But yeah, the Barbarian can destroy a building using raw power, and the others can do so using precision. No one can do the latter, unless the sky on your setting is a tangible firmament, as it is in Greek myth. In which case the Barbarian can do it
I take this to mean that a fighter can never be as strong as a barbarian. Granted, holding up the sky is ridiculous and very setting dependent, but it is one of the most extreme feats of strength from mythology and folklore. If epic play is going to be a thing, I would like all classes to be able to engage in mythological feats.

A fighter or rogue to cut a hole in "reality" and open a window to another plane? This is ambiguous, because we are no longer discussing the world as we know it. But I would allow it.
Wow, I thought this was one of the most inherently magical options on my list. Cool, that means that fighters and rogues can engage in stories that involve plane shifting without outside assistance.

A fighter to have nearly superhuman resistances to magical effects (i.e., AD&D's favorable saving throws.)Of course!
Sure. However, it's a passive rather than active benefit and I want all classes to have active high level abilities.

A rogue to hide in his/her own shadow? No, because nonsense.
Granted it's totally impossible, but shouldn't high level (epic) rogue be able to compete with the invisibility spell that wizards got back around 3rd character level? So epic/mythological martial characters should not be able to replicate an early heroic/T1 spell effect at endgame?

A martial character to make such a powerful attack that it can cut/damage a more distant enemy or multiple enemies? Of course. Chalk that up to tremendous force or precision.

I saw sword beams and shock-waves as more magical, but cool, these are fun effects and gives fighter et al some AOE.

If the game supports a "demi-god" tier, should every class be able to participate in epic/mythological level play? Or is it better to cap all PCs abilities at some lower power scale? I like 4e's three distinct tiers and would like to keep them to allow groups to tune the content and power scale to taste.

OACSNY97

2021-07-07, 08:44 PM

You can use "martial" instead of "mundane" is that makes you feel better.

What will elevate the martial classes isnt the title we give them, but the powers we permit them.

I agree with the powers we give them are the most important part, but I think calling the non-caster classes "mundane" is a branding failure. "Mundane" carries too many connotations of "muggle," boring, humdrum, not interesting, and lacking in agency; all of which helps to perpetuate the "guy at the gym" fallacy.

I would argue that the precise nature of the relationship is irrelevant to the class.

Just like the nature of Sorcerer's origin (bloodline/infusion/talent) does not change that they are a Sorcerer.

Just like the nature of a Fighter's training (military school, hunter/marauder lifestyle, collected experience from street fights) does not change that they are a Fighter.

I can imagine trusted Clerics who faithfully do their masters' work with their masters' help, Clerics who are merely upholding covenants and contracts for gain, Clerics who were given power against their will and the obligation to complete a mission "or else", and Clerics who were given power, no strings attached, by forces who feel love or obligation to them.

At the end of the day, its borrowed power, and itll be represented by the same "borrowing" mechanics.

I see this as collapsing cleric, paladin, druid, barbarian, ranger, and warlock into a single theurgy/borrowed power class. At this time, I am not fond of this extreme level of reductionism, which collapses classes that have both their own fiction and mechanics into a subclasses of a single huge class.

I'd be ok with collapsing the primal and divine power sources back down into a single theurgy power source as it can be ambiguous as to where the dividing line between them is. But having one "borrowed" power source does not make all six existing classes a single mechanical class, and trying to do so would loose opportunities to make them distinct.

What you have described, to me, is a Cleric whose patron focuses on enhancing his strength, fortitude and mettle. A War Cleric. Viking berserkers (if they are channeling spirits and not tapping into their own potential) are War Clerics. The biblical Samson is a War Cleric. Using borrowed, magical power (Theurgy) to swing a stick harder (fight war) makes you a War Cleric.

Conan the Barbarian is a Barbarian, and not a War Cleric, because he's just that tough.
So every borrowed powered makes you a cleric and every borrowed power that helps you swing a stick makes you a war cleric. What?
To me this erases all of the distinctions that make them interesting.

On the note about "Clerical Warriors vs Martial Warriors," sure one (the Totem Warrior style Barbarian) is empowered, but I don't quite get how you could really use the same features to represent a spellcastery miracle worker and an empowered beat-stick.
Just give a Cleric cantrips and spells that enhance his physical abilities. Faster movement, increased durability, harder hits that deal more damage, knock enemies prone and stun them. Maybe a version of the Paladin's Smite (if we're using the 5e framework).
How are these spells and class features able to be swapped in-and-out, then plugged into the same base class? All the base class would have left after swapping bits are the skills and maybe, just maybe weapon/armor proficiencies and hit point totals.
If it's simply additive, the build with the fewest additions to base class,will almost certainly be worse, with fewer tools it can use to contribute to various situations.

At that point, unless we're ditching DnD's class based system for a more point-buy system, it would be easier to just to have different classes using the same power source, which gives more room to make them mechanically and flavorfully different.

falconflicker

2021-07-07, 08:52 PM

GalacticAxekick, just out of curiosity, what would you do if you wanted to stat He-Man in your preferred class system?

OACSNY97

2021-07-07, 09:02 PM

So after thinking about what happens if one were to collapse the divine and primal power sources into a single theurgy power source, I got to thinking about Monk and its Ki.

What if Ki was the "martial" power source? Based on Eastern mysticism, everyone has chi and anyone can perform certain actions to be in tune with it/use it. So what if Monk pretty much uses Ki as expected, but Fighter and Rogue use it for self-enhancement and luck respectively?

Or is Ki sorcery because it's inherent/born power? Or is Ki wizardry because anyone can learn to use it?

GalacticAxekick

2021-07-08, 12:14 PM

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly and I appreciate the point by point response.You raise interesting questions! It's my pleasure!

[...] what happens if you substitute clouds for smoke? Why shouldn't a fighter or rogue be able to interact with a silver dragon or a cloud giant in its natural habitat without outside assistance?Because their natural habitat is vapour, and people cant fly without outside assistance.

That said, many myths and stories treat clouds as solid, pillowy matter. This is the case in Jack and the Beanstalk, which I think is the source for the cloud giant as a concept. I think the solution here is to make the world more wonderous, and to let Jack the high level Rogue confront it with his guile alone.

I think we have fundamentally different opinions of what the defining features of the barbarian, fighter, and rogue classes are.I would say "extraordinary might, extraordinary technique, and extraordinary cunning" respectively.

So what about modeling the cartoon character Samurai Jack? [...] Should a fighter be able to replicate Samurai Jack's "jump good," feat?Definitely! I think the upper bound of what can be accomplished with training should be raised to wuxia/anime levels. But I see a difference between jumping dozens of feet to the height of a tree and jumping dozens of miles to the horizon.

I take this to mean that a fighter can never be as strong as a barbarian. Correct. And the Barbarian can never be as skilled as the Fighter. Its strength vs technique.

Granted, holding up the sky is ridiculous and very setting dependent, but it is one of the most extreme feats of strength from mythology and folklore. If epic play is going to be a thing, I would like all classes to be able to engage in mythological feats.The Fighter has mythological feats of skill. Catching arrows and swords in her bare hands. Deflecting a ray off her blade. Ricochetting a sling bullet between every member of an opposing army. Dodging the individual shrapnel bits and tongues of flame in a fiery explosion. Running up a giant's club as it swings to stab the giant in the eye. Charging into a dragon's breath, shield first, to stand in its jaws and smother the flame. Striking a resonance point in a meteor, as it comes down, to shatter it in half and stand unscathed at ground zero. Fighting and adventuring blindedfolded, using noise and vibration to sense surroundings. Sensing a change in air pressure as a creature begins to teleport and attacking the place it is going to be. Determining a creature's health, history and abilities by examining its posture, breathing, movement, scars, etc.

And of course, some things we discussed. Running on water, leaping up trees, sending shockwaves and blades of air pressure to harm distant foes. Cutting through space itself.

Sure. However, it's a passive rather than active benefit and I want all classes to have active high level abilities.I think martial classes should have active defenses.

For example, if a caster is concentrating on a spell targeting a Barbarian, the Barbarian should be able to resist with SUCH FEROCITY that the caster's concentration is broken and that the caster's mind takes psychic damage in recoil.

Granted it's totally impossible, but shouldn't high level (epic) rogue be able to compete with the invisibility spell that wizards got back around 3rd character level?I think that around the time Wizards gain Invisibility, Rogues should gain the ability to dart out of hiding, do as they please, and return to hiding without being noticed. The Rogue hiding under the table can leap out, stab you, and hide on the closet before you notice anything has happened.

The Rogue should be able to hide from a particular creature by staying just outside the corner of its eye, even while standing in the open. The Rogue should be able to stand right behind an enemy's back for a whole encounter, moving with it, unseen and unheard by it.

The Rogue should be able to hide so effectively and move so unpredictably that divination spells cast to detect it STILL show an empty room. The Rogue is there, but your eyes deceive you. Your Arcane Eye deceives you. The Rogue defies your expectation of what to look for.

This is the Rogue's answer to invisibility

If the game supports a "demi-god" tier, should every class be able to participate in epic/mythological level play?Definitely!

I like 4e's three distinct tiers and would like to keep them to allow groups to tune the content and power scale to taste.Fair!

GalacticAxekick

2021-07-08, 01:53 PM

I see this as collapsing cleric, paladin, druid, barbarian, ranger, and warlock into a single theurgy/borrowed power class. At this time, I am not fond of this extreme level of reductionism, which collapses classes that have both their own fiction and mechanics into a subclasses of a single huge class.5e's spellcasters (with the exception of the Warlock) use basically the same spellcasting progression.

Let's say I collapse the Cleric, Druid, Paladin and Warlock into one class. It has the Warlock's unique spell slot + boon + invocation system. It prepares spells like a Cleric or a Druid. Channel Divinity and Wild Shape might be absorbed into the invocation system as invocations to be learned and upgraded.

The class stays the same size as the Warlock class already is. It just gains a longer list of spells, invocations and subclasses. And rather than removing features from the game and reducing options, I think this expands them immensely!

My Norse berserker takes the Pact of the Blade and is entrusted with a sacred axe by the bear spirits. He gains invocations like Eldritch Smite (to make spirit-empowered weapon attacks), Armor of Shadows (to gain spirit-enhanced fortitude), Thirsting Blade (to make extra attacks), and Wild Shape (to become a bear). Spells previously available to the Cleric and Druid but not to the Warlock are available within this class, so he can cast Conjure Animals, Spirit Guardians and Guardian of Faith to call upon the bear spirits in ways that do not simply empower him.

My French crusader takes the Pact of the Blade as well, and is entrusted with a holy lance by his spiritual leaders. He adopts a similar build overall, but replaces Armor of Shadows with Eldritch Armor (which lets him wear metal armor) and forgoes Wild Shape. He gains spells lifted from the former Paladin spell list, including the many Smite spells, the many Aura spells, Divine Favor and Crusader's Mantle. He might gain invocations that used to be Channel Divinities such as Turn Unholy and Sacred Weapon.

My Greek oracle takes the Pact of the Talisman and is entrusted with an amulet that wards against misfortune. She gains invocations like Protection of the Talisman (to gain further protection), Devil's Sight (Darkvision), Eldritch Sight (Detect Magic, Witch Sight (limited Truesight), Whispers from the Grave (Speak with the Dead), Ghostly Gaze (to see through walls), and Visions of Distant Realms (Arcane Eye). Spells previously available to the Cleric but not the Warlock are available within this class, so she can cast Augury, Commune, Divination, Locate Object, Locate Creature, and Legend Lore to gain truly obscure information.

My biblical prophet takes the Pact of the Tome and is entrusted with a tablet inscribed with the word of his god. He gains the Book of Ancient Secrets invocation (to cast rituals) and a former Channel Divinities (now invocations) that heal and support his allies such as Preserve Life. He also variety of Cleric spells that heal, cure, and revive.

My Arab djinn-binding occultist... plays a normal 5e Warlock.

What is lost?

So every borrowed powered makes you a cleric and every borrowed power that helps you swing a stick makes you a war cleric. What?Yeah. Borrowing power makes you a Cleric. The type of power you borrow defines what type of Cleric you are.

All the distinctions between priests, druids, warlocks, etc still exist as different combinations of subclasses, spells and other features.

How are these spells and class features able to be swapped in-and-out, then plugged into the same base class?5e already has a spell/subclass selection system. The Warlock in particular adds a boon/invocation selections system. That's all the swapping you should need.

All the base class would have left after swapping bits are the skills and maybe, just maybe weapon/armor proficiencies and hit point totals. The base class is a skeleton. The base class says "This is how you prepare spells, this is how many spells you can cast, this when you get your boon, this is when you learn invocations". In other words "This is the rate at which you acquire your powers, these are the resources that your powers cost, and this is how the resources are recovered. Now go choose some powers".

All spellcasters work this way. Spell selection/subclass choice is where the vast majority of specific features come from.

At that point, unless we're ditching DnD's class based system for a more point-buy system, it would be easier to just to have different classes using the same power source, which gives more room to make them mechanically and flavorfully different.Not really. I'm using 5e's Warlock base class completely unchanged.

GalacticAxekick

2021-07-08, 01:57 PM

GalacticAxekick, just out of curiosity, what would you do if you wanted to stat He-Man in your preferred class system?I know very little about He-Man. I'm pretty sure he uses a magic sword to become stronger. But the sword is just a magic item, and not reflective of his class features.

Isn't he just a muscly prince without the sword? Like, level 0 dude with reasonably high Strength?

OACSNY97

2021-07-08, 02:06 PM

5e's spellcasters (with the exception of the Warlock) use basically the same spellcasting progression.

[...]

5e already has a spell/subclass selection system. The Warlock in particular adds a boon/invocation selections system. That's all the swapping you should need.

The base class is a skeleton. The base class says "This is how you prepare spells, this is how many spells you can cast, this when you get your boon, this is when you learn invocations". In other words "This is the rate at which you acquire your powers, these are the resources that your powers cost, and this is how the resources are recovered. Now go choose some powers".

All spellcasters work this way. Spell selection/subclass choice is where the vast majority of specific features come from.

Not really. I'm using 5e's Warlock base class completely unchanged.

Quick response now, hopefully a longer one later when I'm less pressed for time.
Would I be correct in thinking that you are using 5e as your underlying inspiration? I wonder if some of the disconnect is that I'm starting with 4e and trying to add 5e's more defined subclass to system, rather than the other way around. I liked many of 4e's PHB1 and 2 classes but think that using 5e style subclasses allows for more role (leader, defender, striker, controller) flexibility within a class/concept.

GalacticAxekick

2021-07-08, 03:03 PM

Quick response now, hopefully a longer one later when I'm less pressed for time.
Would I be correct in thinking that you are using 5e as your underlying inspiration?Definitely!

I wonder if some of the disconnect is that I'm starting with 4e and trying to add 5e's more defined subclass to system, rather than the other way around. I liked many of 4e's PHB1 and 2 classes but think that using 5e style subclasses allows for more role (leader, defender, striker, controller) flexibility within a class/concept.I think this might be the case.

5e has no concept of class-role unity. Classes give you rough skeleton of how people with a certain power source operate, but the specific features you acquire and the role you play are up to you.

I think this is the best way to do character creature in a simulationist game. It puts story/cause/power sourcd first and lets you fine tune from there, instead of putting gameplay/effect/features a first by attaching them directly to the base class.

GalacticAxekick

2021-07-08, 11:45 PM

I haven't seriously wrestled, but I have fenced competitively, so switching gears a little bit to what I'm more familiar with.

I think we can both agree that fencing is 90%+ technique, as exerting more force than necessary to move the foil is generally frowned upon, as you don't want to injure your opponent.

The thing is, fencing is an athletic activity, and, like any athletic activity, will fatigue and exhaust the body. It takes more for some than for others. I got tired after about 5 minutes, but most of the club would take at least one break every 30 minutes.For sure! If I'm wrestling near the limits of my technique (i.e. wrestling someone as skilled or more skilled than me), I'm going to compensate with strength. If I'm wrestling someone significantly larger or stronger than me, I'm going to couple technique with strength. In times like these, I'm taking at least one break every 30 minutes.

But high level D&D classes represent extremes.

The high level Fighter is someone with technique so vast that he's virtually never fighting near the limits of his technique. Fighting most battles is like walking to him. He does not fear exhaustion. He fears a mistep. He fears a tactical blunder.

Meanwhile, the high level Barbarian is someone with nothing but strength. Superhuman, earth-shattering strength. He does not think about tactics. He solves every problem exactly the same way. But he fears that somewhere between his 1st and 1000th victim, he is going to get tired.

OK, that was sort of successful, but it seems an awfully convoluted way of going about that, and runs into the problem that it would render a properly built "War Cleric" superior in basically every way to a Martial warrior, in that they can be the Warrior's physical superior, and still do non-physical magic.It isn't really convoluted. 5e's Pact of the Blade Warlock does exactly this. You get a weapon that your patron helps you wield. You can burn spell slots to hit harder when you swing it. You can cast spells or spend actions to improve your mobility an defenses. But if you rely on spell slots, you run out of juice and fall behind the Fighter. And if you rely on utility actions, you are rapidly outpaced by the Fighter.

The consensus in this thread, however, is that every class should have equally powerful resources and recover resources on the same schedule.

With that constraint, you can't have powerful-but-scarce magic, and so the War Cleric becomes very difficult to design. Here's my shot at it:

Warriors (Barbarians, Fighters, Rogues) do things spontaneously. They know techniques and have strengths. They can use those techniques and exercise that strength on a whim. This is represented by a fairly long list of at-will, encounter and daily powers that are absolutely always available to the warrior.

Clerics require preparation. They must plead to their gods, bargain with their devils, and call upon their ancestors to borrow extraordinary powers. They have an enormous number of at-will and encounter powers, but can only access a small list of these at any given moment. They have a special encounter power that lets them swap lists of at-will powers, and they have a special daily power that lets them swap lists of encounter powers.

For example, warrior is fighting a group of cultists in a ruined hamlet. He is slashing through mobs, leaping around the battlefield, and knocking spellcasters into a daze mid-incantation using at-will powers.

The earth shakes, the ruins crumble, and the hamlet rises up from the ground, revealing itself to be the (now reanimated) corpse of a giant. The warrior uses an encounter power to move when it is not his turn, climbing to the crown the giant's head while his party slips and falls off of its body, then uses at-will powers to attack its vulnerable face while his party tries not to get stepped on.

The giant attempts to force the warrior into his mouth, so the warrior uses a daily power to hold its jaws open (to dodge one melee attack and disarm the attacker of that weapon) then proceeds to slash at the inside of its mouth with at-will powers.

Meanwhile, a War Cleric is fighting a group of cultists in a ruined hamlet. He is slashing through mobs, leaping around the battlefield, and knocking spellcasters into a daze mid-incantation using at-will powers.

The earth shakes, the ruins crumble, and the hamlet rises up from the ground, revealing itself to be the (now reanimated) corpse of a giant. The Cleric does not have access to the encounter power that would let it move at this moment, so he and his party fall, and he burns a daily power to soften the landing (taking 0 damage and landing on his feet).

The Cleric's slashes and blows are useless against the giant's feet, and the Cleric is in constant danger of being stepped on, so he uses an encounter power to adopt a new list of at-will powers that involve conjuring primal spirits to both protect him and attacking from range.

How does that sound?

falconflicker

2021-07-09, 12:53 AM

The high level Fighter is someone with technique so vast that he's virtually never fighting near the limits of his technique. Fighting most battles is like walking to him. He does not fear exhaustion. He fears a mistep. He fears a tactical blunder.

Meanwhile, the high level Barbarian is someone with nothing but strength. Superhuman, earth-shattering strength. He does not think about tactics. He solves every problem exactly the same way. But he fears that somewhere between his 1st and 1000th victim, he is going to get tired.

I'm sorry, but that division is nonsensical to me.

Both descriptions describe a character fighting against a vast swarm of trivial foes, and would inevitably fail when facing a near-peer who was competently trained, and neither could ever be more than a liability against a superior foe.

Facing a powerful dragon or demon, your fighter would be ineffectual, as they could do everything right but they lack the strength to pierce the enemy's thick hide, and your barbarian would be ineffectual as the enemy would still be stronger as well as lacking the technique to do anything meaningful other than an endurance match they'd loose.

I can't think of a single character who could fit into either of your versions of Fighter and Barbarian without having to multiclass into the other and still be a competent warrior.

GalacticAxekick

2021-07-09, 02:02 AM

I'm sorry, but that division is nonsensical to me (much like the distinctions between different forms of borrowed power are to you). Any given action may require a great deal of force and tire the user substantially, and good technique can reduce the impact of the action, but nobody could become competent at an activity without both.

Both descriptions describe a character fighting against a vast swarm of trivial foes, and would inevitably fail when facing a near-peer who was competently trained, and neither could ever be more than a liability against a superior foe.

Facing a powerful dragon or demon, your fighter would be ineffectual, as they could do everything right but they lack the strength to pierce the enemy's thick hide, and your barbarian would be ineffectual as the enemy would still be stronger as well as lacking the technique to do anything meaningful other than an endurance match they'd loose.The dragon's hide seems impenetrable, but it is not. Like any suit of armor, it needs gaps for the wearer to move. As long as the dragon is on its feet, it keeps its belly to the ground and has robust defenses. But if the dragon is airborne, waterborne, prone, or otherwise attacked from beneath, the soft underbelly is exposed. In addition, the dragon's eyes and innards are unarmored.

If the Fighter is a swordsman, he might focus on defensive actions to withstand the dragon's breath until the breath weapon is exhausted. When the dragon swoops down to attack in melee, but before it touches the ground, the Fighter strikes the underbelly.

The landed dragon understands that Fighter knows his weakness and resolves not to fly again. He attacks using his bite and claws. The Fighter begins dodging and parrying, and eventually manoeuvres his way onto the dragon's back and begins climbing to its face. The dragon thrashes in a desperate effort to stop the Fighter from stabbing it in the eye, and harms the Fughter in the process, but is stabbed nonetheless.

Desperate, now, the dragon takes to the air with the Fighter still clinging to it. In the dragon's mind, the Fighter can hang on and finish the fight high in the sky, or let go and let the dragon kick its wounds. The Fighter, however, chooses a third option. He lets go and hurls his sword up at the dragon's underbelly to strike the killing blow.

Throughout the fight, the Fighter has access to all of the same features. None of them are exhausted, because none of them rely on brute force. It's using the right features at the right times that let him win.

Meanwhile,

The Barbarian is fighting a dragon as well. The fight begins with the dragon raining its fuery breath over the Barbarian, but unlike the Fighter who must carefully defend himself and choose the moment to strike, the Barbarian can leap straight up at the dragon and axe it over the head.

The dragon is dazed, falls out of the sky and lands. Since when do humanoids hit that hard? The barbarian is hacking away at it, and unlike the Fighter, he hits hard enough to actually crack its hide.

The dragon bites down on the Barbarian, but the Barbarian is strong enough to hold its jaws open. The dragon blasts it with a direct stream of fiery breath, but the Barbarian is chipping uselessly but passionately at its teeth, fighting through the pain.

Just as the dragon begins to panic, its jaws snap shut. The Barbarian seems to have exhausted himself and can no longer hold the jaws open. The dragon swallow the angry man and hopes that he suffocates or dissolves soon.

Drowning in bile, restrained and blinded, the Barbarian calls upon the last bit of his strength that he was saving for a moment like this. With nothing but soft flesh all around him, he ignites the last embers of his Rage and becomes a whirlwind of steel, shredding the dragon from within.

Throughout the fight, the Barbarian was drawing from a dwindling pool of resources. Once they exhausted, he would be mostly helpless, and so he resolved to call upon his strength only when it counted.

falconflicker

2021-07-09, 03:12 AM

First thing's first, Thank you for the scenarios, but they don't actually address my confusion.
What I want to know, is how you think that the only two options for fighting are all power no technique and all technique no power? Is there no middle ground? If there is middle ground, how is that not the vast majority of warriors?

The dragon's hide seems impenetrable, but it is not. Like any suit of armor, it needs gaps for the wearer to move. As long as the dragon is on its feet, it keeps its belly to the ground and has robust defenses. But if the dragon is airborne, waterborne, prone, or otherwise attacked from beneath, the soft underbelly is exposed. In addition, the dragon's eyes and innards are unarmored.
Are you sure? That's not something consistently true.

If the Fighter is a swordsman, he might focus on defensive actions to withstand the dragon's breath until the breath weapon is exhausted. When the dragon swoops down to attack in melee, but before it touches the ground, the Fighter strikes the underbelly.

The landed dragon understands that Fighter knows his weakness and resolves not to fly again. He attacks using his bite and claws. The Fighter begins dodging and parrying, and eventually manoeuvres his way onto the dragon's back and begins climbing to its face. The dragon thrashes in a desperate effort to stop the Fighter from stabbing it in the eye, and harms the Fughter in the process, but is stabbed nonetheless.

Desperate, now, the dragon takes to the air with the Fighter still clinging to it. In the dragon's mind, the Fighter can hang on and finish the fight high in the sky, or let go and let the dragon kick its wounds. The Fighter, however, chooses a third option. He lets go and hurls his sword up at the dragon's underbelly to strike the killing blow.

Throughout the fight, the Fighter has access to all of the same features. None of them are exhausted, because none of them rely on brute force. It's using the right features at the right times that let him win.
That relies on the Dragon's weaknesses being sufficiently weak for the relatively weak Fighter to penetrate which, again, is not consistent.
If the "soft bits" are less soft than you're assuming, the Dragon would just ignore the Fighter, and be no worse for it.
The outcome was not actually based on using the right features at the right times, but instead utilizing specific weaknesses that were put into the enemy for the specific purpose of allowing the Fighter to win.

The Barbarian is fighting a dragon as well. The fight begins with the dragon raining its fuery breath over the Barbarian, but unlike the Fighter who must carefully defend himself and choose the moment to strike, the Barbarian can leap straight up at the dragon and axe it over the head.

The dragon is dazed, falls out of the sky and lands. Since when do humanoids hit that hard? The barbarian is hacking away at it, and unlike the Fighter, he hits hard enough to actually crack its hide.

The dragon bites down on the Barbarian, but the Barbarian is strong enough to hold its jaws open. The dragon blasts it with a direct stream of fiery breath, but the Barbarian is chipping uselessly but passionately at its teeth, fighting through the pain.

Just as the dragon begins to panic, its jaws snap shut. The Barbarian seems to have exhausted himself and can no longer hold the jaws open. The dragon swallow the angry man and hopes that he suffocates or dissolves soon.

Drowning in bile, restrained and blinded, the Barbarian calls upon the last bit of his strength that he was saving for a moment like this. With nothing but soft flesh all around him, he ignites the last embers of his Rage and becomes a whirlwind of steel, shredding the dragon from within.

Throughout the fight, the Barbarian was drawing from a dwindling pool of resources. Once they exhausted, he would be mostly helpless, and so he resolved to call upon his strength only when it counted.
Is the Barbarian actually stronger than the Dragon? The whole point of the scenario I was outlining was going up against a stronger foe.
Why would the Dragon swallow the Barbarian whole? That's not a standard tactic Dragons use.
Why are you assuming that the inside of a Dragon would be weaker than the outside?
Other than you saying that the Barbarian is losing strength as the fight goes on, there's nothing in what you described that seems like any resources are being expended.

To sum it up, there are strange assumptions going on in these scenarios, the decisions made by the foe are both sub optimal and unusual, and the only way that the characters were successful was because of weaknesses added to the enemy in order to facilitate those victories.

OACSNY97

2021-07-09, 06:06 AM

Because their natural habitat is vapour, and people cant fly without outside assistance.

That said, many myths and stories treat clouds as solid, pillowy matter. This is the case in Jack and the Beanstalk, which I think is the source for the cloud giant as a concept. I think the solution here is to make the world more wonderous, and to let Jack the high level Rogue confront it with his guile alone.
I'm totally ok with making the world more wondrous- why else would we be playing a fantasy game? However, Jack from Jack and the Beanstalk is generally portrayed as a kid, and, at least initially, a pretty gullible one at that. The way I see it, Jack is less cunning than lucky, which still works for a rogue, but he's still a low level rogue in that he's relying mostly on luck since he hasn't yet learned how to use canny tricks.

Definitely! I think the upper bound of what can be accomplished with training should be raised to wuxia/anime levels. But I see a difference between jumping dozens of feet to the height of a tree and jumping dozens of miles to the horizon.

I suspected that your preferences topped out about what I consider low to mid Paragon tier to use 4e's parlance. Back on my first post to this thread, I mentioned how I envision three broad power level bands:

Tiered Level based system:

21 to 30 levels total (probably on the higher side)
Need meaningful character choice at each level up - power, feat, ASI, class feature option
3 tiers of play:

1st Tier (Heroic) - “sword & sorcery” / fairytales were clever hero beats powerful foe

[Approx power scale: Gaston (Beauty & Beast) → Robin Hood & Merry Men and/or Fellowship of the Ring → King Arthur & Knights of the Round Table

2nd Tier (Paragon) - “wuxia”

Major Trojan War Heroes / Hercules

3rd Tier (Epic) - “demi-god” aka “gravity, what gravity?”

Hercules/Beowulf → Sun Wukong

Be explicit what kinds of stories each tier supports?
Have quick start rules for starting a character at the beginning of each tier?

What I hadn't stated at the time was how I envision these tiers aligning with the wizards nine spell levels. After reviewing the spell lists for some of the most egregiously abusable spells and either moving them to a different levels and/or off to long casting time rituals, heroic tier wizards will get access to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spells, paragon tier wizards get access to 4th, 5th, and 6th level spells, and epic wizards have get access to 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells as they grow.

If wuxia/anime is about as far as training or "natural" might can go, should the game cut off shortly after 6th level spells come into play? That's cool, and I kind of think might have been what 5e was after with bounded accuracy but they kept high level toolkit spells without giving non-casters as large a toolbox to work from, so a common complaint is that 5e fighter just stops growing except for bigger numbers around 10th level.
I don't like that that design decision, and if the game is going to include the 7th-9th level spells, then the non-casters need non-gear dependent, GM agnostic abilities that can compete in versatility and power.

More later, have to run.

GalacticAxekick

2021-07-09, 09:26 AM

I'm totally ok with making the world more wondrous- why else would we be playing a fantasy game? However, Jack from Jack and the Beanstalk is generally portrayed as a kid, and, at least initially, a pretty gullible one at that. The way I see it, Jack is less cunning than lucky, which still works for a rogue, but he's still a low level rogue in that he's relying mostly on luck since he hasn't yet learned how to use canny tricks.But you see my point? That instead if making fighters fly, we can just make clouds fluffy? That we do not need to make martial characters pseudo-magicians for them to work in a fantastical world?

I suspected that your preferences topped out about what I consider low to mid Paragon tier to use 4e's parlance.

If wuxia/anime is about as far as training or "natural" might can go, should the game cut off shortly after 6th level spells come into play?No, the game should continue. Because even if the Fighter's natural might stops at wuxia, the Fighter was never about might. She's about technique. And her technique is epic.

Meanwhile, the Barbarian IS about might, and his might CAN push past wuxia into epic.

GalacticAxekick

2021-07-09, 10:28 AM

First thing's first, Thank you for the scenarios, but they don't actually address my confusion.
What I want to know, is how you think that the only two options for fighting are all power no technique and all technique no power? Is there no middle ground? If there is middle ground, how is that not the vast majority of warriors?The middle ground is having a high Strength modifier (raw power) and proficiency with your weapon (technique). That IS the vast majority of warriors.

Warriors who continue to both cultuvate extraordinary technique and discover extraordinary strength within themselves can multiclass as both Fighters and Barbarians. Maybe even that is a majority of high level warriors in your world.

I'm not saying that most warriors are pure strength or pure technique. I'm saying that's what these classes are.

A class represents the development of one power source. We have to keep extraordinary technique and extraordinary strength separate classes (the Fighter and Barbarian) so that players are free to take levels in either and decide how much their character cultivates each power source.

Are you sure? That's not something consistently true.This is true in real animals (alligators, armadillos, turtles) and true in certain fictional dragons (notably Tolkien's)

That relies on the Dragon's weaknesses being sufficiently weak for the relatively weak Fighter to penetrate which, again, is not consistent.The relatively weak Fighter must withstand the dragon's breath, intercept it mid landing, parry its attacks, climb it while it thrashes, or throw his sword accurately to get at this well-hidden weakness.

The dragon's hide would be impenetrable to a less skilled warrior, barring extraordinary strength.

I think this is a perfectly consistent way to represent a powerful foe.

If the "soft bits" are less soft than you're assuming, the Dragon would just ignore the Fighter, and be no worse for it.
The outcome was not actually based on using the right features at the right times, but instead utilizing specific weaknesses that were put into the enemy for the specific purpose of allowing the Fighter to win.If the dragon had literally no weakness then yes, the Fighter would lose. That's how invincibility works.

If the dragon has some weaknesses, but also many strengths, a Fighter can win if and only if he uses techniques that downplay the dragon's strengths and exploit its weaknesses. That's what tactics are.

To defeat any superior enemy, you find SOMETHING that they lack or SOMETHING that they overlooked and attack that. If there is nothing, you lose, of course.

Is the Barbarian actually stronger than the Dragon? The whole point of the scenario I was outlining was going up against a stronger foe.The Barbarian is stronger in short bursts. The dragon is stronger overall. Once the Barbarian is exhausted, the dragon has every advantage.

Why would the Dragon swallow the Barbarian whole? That's not a standard tactic Dragons use.The Barbarian is already in his shut jaws. Reptiles cant chew. Why spit it out?

Why are you assuming that the inside of a Dragon would be weaker than the outside?You cant have boney armor lining your intestines.

Other than you saying that the Barbarian is losing strength as the fight goes on, there's nothing in what you described that seems like any resources are being expended.You're right. My Barbarian example is poorly written, since the exhaustion is told and not shown. I only hope that you can see my point: that the Barbarian can overwhelm the dragon's defenses for a short while, and that he must capitalize on that moment before exhaustion claims him. That this is the way of exhausting strength, vs the Fighter's untiring technique.

Person_Man

2021-07-10, 03:45 PM

OACSNY97

2021-07-11, 08:25 AM

For my personal tastes, 4E had four big flaws, all of which would be easily solved by borrowing from other editions.

Problem: Poor Fluff: 4E borrowed very heavily from video games, which a lot of old school D&D players disliked.
Solution: Use Traditional D&D Terms: You basically just need to add a simulationist name and description to everything. For example, I think Healing Surge is a good mechanic. But no one would use the words "Healing Surge" in a conversation within the game world itself (Fafhrd turned to the Gray Mouser and said, "That looks like a bad wound from the brigands we just fought. You should use a Healing Surge..."). 5E did a mostly good job of fixing this. So for example, Short Rest is basically the same thing as a Healing Surge (although the specifics obviously differ), but is a lot simpler to understand and use, and makes a lot more sense within the game world itself. 1-2 sentences of well written fluff goes a long way.
In 5e, I think Hit Dice (HD) are the closer equivalent to Healing Surges than Short Rests, but I agree that Healing Surges are a useful mechanic with a terrible name.

What do you think of renaming Healing Surges either Vitality or Reserves? Then, the in character conversation would sound something like, 'You look injured/tired. You ought to take a rest and restore your Vitality,' or ''You look injured/tired. Would taking a rest let you tap your Reserves?"

Regardless of what Healing Surges/Hit Dice are renamed, in the meta, to avoid having to explain over and over, spend a Vitality/Reserve and get defined percentage HP back, would you be ok with defining the amount of HP a character gets back when spending a healing resource as "your surge value"?

Overall, I agree that 4e's fluff was barely-there to non-existent and what there was was pretty uninspiring. It took playing some 5e to really appreciate 4e's PHB; 5e's PHB is inspiring in a way 4e's isn't, but 4e's is so much easier to use.

Problem: Powers didn't scale with level. So each class had a list of a dozens of very similar Powers, making it very hard to comprehend what a class could do in comparison to other classes. Solution: Scale all Powers automatically: 4E At-Will Powers should scale like 5E Cantrips, 4E Encounter Powers scale like a 5E Warlock's spells, and Daily Powers scale like 3.5 spells (up to 9th level spells).
Totally down with having powers scale.

Problem: 30 levels is too many: Similar to the first problem, this added a lot of unnecessary bloat/churn to the classes.
Solution: Use 20 levels like every other edition.
Disagree here. I think 4e's Epic tier, levels 21-30, were pretty much a direct successor to 3.5's epic levels where an expansion book allowed for removing the level cap and super high level, bonkers play. I admit 4e's Epic implementation left a lot to be desired, but the idea is cool, and I think keeping three distinct tiers, "sword and sorcery," "wuxia," and "demi-god" is useful and fun.

For purposes of symmetry, I'd prefer the total number of levels to be evenly divisible by three, and at one point I ran a level up abilities schedule comparing what characters might get in a game of 21 levels vs. 30 levels and I'd like feedback on the rate of ability or customization gain.
21 Character Levels:

Level
Tier
Major Choice
Max. Wiz. Spell Level

1
Heroic
Class & Background
Cantrips, 1st level

2
Heroic
Talent*
1st lvl

3
Heroic
Feat
1st lvl

4
Heroic
Power
2nd lvl

5
Heroic
ASI
2nd lvl

6
Heroic
Power
3rd lvl

7
Heroic
Feat (capstone feature?)
3rd lvl

8
Paragon
Paragon Path
?

9
Paragon
Talent
4th lvl

10
Paragon
Feat
4th lvl

11
Paragon
Power
5th lvl

12
Paragon
ASI
5th lvl

13
Pargon
Power
6th lvl

14
Paragon
Feat (capstone feature?)
6th lvl

15
Epic
Epic Destiny
?

16
Epic
Talent
7th lvl

17
Epic
Feat
7th lvl

18
Epic
Power
8th lvl

19
Epic
ASI
8th lvl

20
Epic
Power
9th lvl

21
Epic
Feat/capstone feature
9th lvl

*Talents are basically non-combat features and abilities to ensure that everyone has the option to access the exploration and social pillars.

30 Character Levels:

Level
Tier
Major Choice
Max. Wiz. Spell Level

1
Heroic
Class & Background
Cantrips, 1st level

2
Heroic
Talent*
1st lvl

3
Heroic
Feat
1st lvl

4
Heroic
ASI
1st lvl

5
Heroic
Feat
2nd lvl

6
Heroic
Power
2nd lvl

7
Heroic
Feat
2nd lvl

8
Heroic
ASI
3rd lvl

9
Heroic
Feat
3rd lvl

10
Heroic
Power/capstone feature
3rd lvl

11
Paragon
Paragon Path
?

12
Paragon
Talent*
4th lvl

13
Paragon
Feat
4th lvl

14
Paragon
ASI
4th lvl

15
Paragon
Feat
5th lvl

16
Paragon
Power
5th lvl

17
Paragon
Feat
5th lvl

18
Paragon
ASI
6th lvl

19
Paragon
Feat
6th lvl

20
Paragon
Power/capstone feature
6th lvl

21
Epic
Epic Destiny
?

22
Epic
Talent
7th lvl

23
Epic
Feat
7th lvl

24
Epic
ASI
7th lvl

25
Epic
Feat
8th lvl

26
Epic
Power
8th lvl

27
Epic
Feat
8th lvl

28
Epic
ASI
9th lvl

29
Epic
Feat
9th lvl

30
Epic
Power/capstone feature
9th lvl

I'll admit that especially the 30 level version gives a lot of feats, but I don't want to unnaturally delay class features early game nor have "dead" levels late game where there's no real choice, just bigger numbers and feats seemed like a good way to offer customization. Nor do I want to compress the higher power tiers to a smaller number of character levels. If a group wants to play an "Journey to the West" then they totally ought to be able to.

Problem: Too Few Powers Per Level: Until high levels, most players had about 4-7ish things you could do in combat. This made combat very, very repetitive.
Solution: More Powers: My personal ideal is the 3.5 Tome of Battle, where each class got the equivalent of about 5ish maneuvers/stances at 5th level, and 25ish at 20th level (though some had a bit more or less), plus non-combat abilities, Feats, etc. Though notably, Tome of Battle (which laid the groundwork for 4E) had the same problem of non-scaling maneuvers, which I dislike. (So you had 3-4 different higher level versions of the same maneuver, instead of just having 1 maneuver that scaled with levels).
No major objections to this. For 1st level Fighter, would basic attack, three "At-will" attack powers, and use two of three known maneuvers per encounter, be enough variety for you?

One of my least favorite things about 4e's Paragon is having to train out old encounter and daily powers to get new ones. I've wondered what would happen in a AED based game, if at early game encounter powers become late game At-wills and early game dailies become late game encounter powers. Thoughts?

Person_Man

2021-07-11, 08:36 PM

Disagree here. I think 4e's Epic tier, levels 21-30, were pretty much a direct successor to 3.5's epic levels where an expansion book allowed for removing the level cap and super high level, bonkers play. I admit 4e's Epic implementation left a lot to be desired, but the idea is cool, and I think keeping three distinct tiers, "sword and sorcery," "wuxia," and "demi-god" is useful and fun.

For purposes of symmetry, I'd prefer the total number of levels to be evenly divisible by three, and at one point I ran a level up abilities schedule comparing what characters might get in a game of 21 levels vs. 30 levels and I'd like feedback on the rate of ability or customization gain.
21 Character Levels

If this is your preference, and you're contributing to or leading the homebrew, than go for it.

But just keep in mind that a 30 level class is 30%ish harder to write and takes 30%ish longer to read than a 20 level class, and a LOT more time to grok what the class can do compared to others. And if you have more than 4ish classes, than its inevitable that you're going to have a lot more bloat and duplication between them. Gognards like myself who grew up on 1E/2E and historical wargaming, and new players who just don't want to read through more than 2-4ish pages of description per class, are just more likely to have difficulty with it.

In addition, I think 20 class levels is one of the "sacred cows" of D&D, even if 10 levels or 30 levels would make more sense for different reasons. Other examples include having the default option to roll 3d6 to generate ability scores, the classic six abilities (Str Dex Con Int Wis Cha), having a variety of different weapon styles (two handed, two weapons, sword and shield, etc), Vancian Magic, etc. You can change a few of these things a little where it makes sense to do so. (For example, I personally dislike random starting ability scores, and the fact that a score of 16 gives a +3 bonus and not a +6 bonus, which would make a lot more sense). But if you change too many, lots of players are just going to gravitate to one of the more classic editions or variants (i.e., Pathfinder, TrueD20, Castles and Crusades, 13th Age).

Instead, I would suggest starting with 20 levels, and then just doing a Epic Level supplement for the subset of the fanbase that really wants it, which is what every non-4E version of D&D did.

Theodoxus

2021-07-11, 10:37 PM

I did this for my homebrew game. Used 5E classes (with a ton of 4E additions, like encounter powers as prayers and incantations for clerics and sorcerers respectively) and bounded accuracy as a baseline. Swapped back out saving throws for Defenses, added At-Wills that targeted various defenses for variety of play. Went back to 4E style movement and combat options. About the only thing my players didn't like were the massively expanded leveling options that took a long time for them to grok enough to level up, and the fact that I used 4E monsters straight from the books sans modification, and a lot of the time their defenses made it nigh impossible to hit effectively. But that was more of a learning curve on my part. It eventually got better.

I'm now in the process of scaling back a lot of class options, just to reduce the amount of analysis paralysis my players have, as well as inputting a lot of new ideas, mostly from the AGE system (using only attribute modifiers, not scores, expanded skill system, 3d6 w/stunt die) and an interesting skill system I gleaned from Adventure Fantasy Game, using a "Novice/Expert/Master" approach to proficiency.

I called it 4.5E, but since I started the project 3 years ago, I wasn't really thinking about 6E at the time... now though, it could definitely be a take on what 6E might end up.

Morphic tide

2021-07-12, 03:01 AM

Strictly and literally per-encounter powers run into a lot more narrative issues than the Short/Long Rest system of 5e, as they set the character's recovery somehow totally apart from the actual in-universe course of events. Time management has been part of literally every edition of D&D, with 4e being the odd one out quite dramatically for even vaguely attempting to do away with it. At most, you tweak the timing of rests and set certain limits, but a campaign that doesn't have time pressures is likely a very poor one for lack of stakes.

Any situation that keeps you from piling on the sidequests just as well keeps you from the "fifteen minute adventuring day", and any situation that doesn't care about how many sidequests you dig for just as well shouldn't have any issue with you Rest-spamming. Fundamentally, the time-management is a matter of putting mechanics to storytelling tension, working to mandate some form of pacing so the DM doesn't start horribly whiplashing the game all over the place.

Open-ended storytelling very paradoxically works better when you have set "pacemakers", because they give you a structure for tension. Without this, the DM has to completely freeform the tension of the story, with literally zero intrinsic pressure from travel times and encounter rates. Indeed, per-encounter powers fundamentally remove endurance gauntlets and, if they're the sole limited resource, there's very nearly no strategy beyond the current fight.

The 4e mechanics I'm aware of that would be great to take notes from is how it handles PC scaling and roles. The former is because 4e is to my understanding the one time spellcasters actually have some level of overlapping itemization functions with Martials, and in both cases you generate quadratic outputs because both sides get X*Y*Z overall output functions, as the abilities, IIRC, give increasing multipliers on items that are replaced with better ones over time alongside your improving fundamentals and having more uses of such abilities. And the strict treadmill means you can very easily design the low-magic alternatives as both variant rules and character options. For roles, this explicitly states the party functionality concerns rather than 5e's method of mitigating them in very narratively-awkward ways, and you can very much specify party roles in parts of the system beyond class and make classes duel-role internally with a third role furnishable by skills.

With 5e, my main desire is specifically how it solves the dense complexity of Vancian, constrains on-hand items, and mitigates the strict need for support roles. However, I'd have the 5e style preparation be Short Rest/"Encounter" based rather than Long Rest/Daily, as this finishes resolving the utility spell problem most relevant for prompt condition removal, while the daily slots then give a refrain for spam. Item attunement, alongside having low-magic options and them acting upon only one of the three nobs, lets you have few but impactful magic items which aren't required to have characters be playable, they just open doors of breadth. And then HP and recovery can be altered to have it so dedicated support mechanics do wonders to keep the campaign rolling, but characters aren't permanently crippled by non-lethal abilities because the recovery isn't a glacial mess.

Use 4e's lockstep progression re-tuned to outmoding every 5 or 6 levels rather than 5e's Bounded Accuracy, because the latter is fundamentally contradictory to D&D's high-level Epic Fantasy convention. An Adult Red Dragon is not actually out of the question for an army of but a few hundred well-trained men (like, Challenge 2 kind of basically-scrubs) to kill unless it keeps its distance. Especially if said men are specifically trained for lobbing attempts at inflicting the Stunned or Restrained conditions to begin horribly butchering it the moment it tries a landing for a Wing Attack. Particularly given Challenge 2 is outside the one-shot range for anything but maybe the breath weapon.

...Definitely keep the players and monsters on similar durability and damage paradigms. Make it so the "Challenge 3" elite military forces are in fact helpless against a fully-grown Dragon, and die horribly and en mass when engaged, while a high-level Barbarian is about as hard to knock out as a same-level Giant by the same means while Dragons are very pointedly murderous all-rounders well synergizing somewhat disparate effects in glorious display of Gish logic. Having weirdly distorted meatbags is fine, but actually have player meatbags like that and use damage reduction mechanics to make bulk HP non-mandetory, having PC versions of each permutation of durability and damage, even if not each combination.

This transparency of mechanical kinds would allow for monster playability much more easily as they aren't working on some largely divergent "Monster Math", the solo beaters would be running on Barbarian-meat and Monk-damage, being a huge pile of raw HP to survive sundry PC assaults with quite granular and ironically mobile damage. Perhaps make "subclasses" act like Starfinder archetypes, where they're one track for your overall PC, then use that to be a big frontloaded "first leg" of class mechanics. Maybe have a general PC surcharge to monsters covering all the stuff PCs get that monsters don't, containing enough to bootstrap to viable class features for the monsters who lack some important appropriately-scaling function to continue being relevant later on.

OACSNY97

2021-07-12, 08:19 AM

I did this for my homebrew game. (...) Went back to 4E style movement and combat options. (...)

Quick reply now on one point that caught my attention. Would you mind discussing the pros and cons of reverting to 4e style movement? My homebrew project is taking the opposite track of starting with 4e, but trying to make it work with 5e's more flexible and divisible movement. What benefits did this change have at your table?

falconflicker

2021-07-12, 11:45 AM

Strictly and literally per-encounter powers run into a lot more narrative issues than the Short/Long Rest system of 5e, as they set the character's recovery somehow totally apart from the actual in-universe course of events.

Strictly speaking, 4e's encounter powers recharged on a 5-minute Short Rest, rather than on a nebulous "start of encounter."

Theodoxus

2021-07-12, 06:01 PM

Quick reply now on one point that caught my attention. Would you mind discussing the pros and cons of reverting to 4e style movement? My homebrew project is taking the opposite track of starting with 4e, but trying to make it work with 5e's more flexible and divisible movement. What benefits did this change have at your table?

Since I added a lot of at-will and encounter powers that allow for shifts, slides and the like, I needed to add to the base game those options as well.

Run: adding +2 (10') to your movement but you get disad on your attacks and enemies get adv on melee attacks against you. You also provoke for leaving a square. No player used this option, but I did use it quite liberally with my monsters. Getting a couple extra squares of movement to close in on folks, even with disadvantage (sometimes negated by pack tactics) really kept the peppering from ranged attacks to a minimum.

Shift: minor action to allow you to move 1 square (5') without provoking. A Poor mans' disengage. Since it's a minor action, it still allowed for movement afterwards. Of course, the lack of OAs only counts for that first square - so you'd still want to disengage if you're swarmed, but it was commonly used by both me and the players for tactical movement. Only characters that had numerous minor action options tended to not shift. As an aside, I turned every Bonus Action that didn't require a opening move to become a minor action, so I kept both in game.

Walk: Standard 5E movement. Provokes when leaving a square, and can move up to your speed.

For what it's worth, I did keep 5Es ability to divide your movement up. Heck, I was allowing that in 3.X. I don't think I'll ever go back to a "movement action" type function. As a LARPer, it never made sense...

Oh, and I far prefer movement in squares over feet. For one, I always use a square based battle mat, so it just makes sense - but probably more importantly, the squares can scale up or down as needed. If the module map uses 10' squares, I don't have to draw out a new grid with 2x2 squares, I just say that a square = 10'. Suddenly folks are moving 2x as fast? not really an issue. Everyone is moving the same speed relative to each other, so it ends up a wash.

Strictly speaking, 4e's encounter powers recharged on a 5-minute Short Rest, rather than on a nebulous "start of encounter."

I don't know if it's due to lack of actual play, the fact that they're called Encounter Powers, or just willful ignorance, but this fact seems to be lost on a lot of discussions on 4E's role on 5E's short rest mechanic. One more thing I think the devs of 5E thought was a detriment to 4E and didn't want to replicate in their new game, so made short rests 12x longer... when really, a 15 minute 'break' would have been more than sufficient if they really needed to have something other than a decent 5 minute breather.

Yakk

2021-07-18, 07:52 PM

Encounter powers give you a clear set of actions and resources to strategize around, like the clearly defined pieces and moves of chess board. They guarantee a good match. But encounter powers make no sense in the context of a story. "Why can I only shoot lasers while we are fighting? Why can I only shoot one per fight?"
Adding a mechanical means to recharge your laz0rs isn't hard.

For example, an ability that requires you to take 1 minute, or even 1 action, to recharge is not something you are going to recharge in combat.

GalacticAxekick

2021-07-19, 06:24 AM

Adding a mechanical means to recharge your laz0rs isn't hard.

For example, an ability that requires you to take 1 minute, or even 1 action, to recharge is not something you are going to recharge in combat.At which point they are no longer literal encounter powers. They no longer recharge "at the start of each encounter", which is the gameplay-story segregation I was talking about.

Yakk

2021-07-19, 12:53 PM

At which point they are no longer literal encounter powers. They no longer recharge "at the start of each encounter", which is the gameplay-story segregation I was talking about.
Sure, but story wise they do recharge "at the start of each encounter".

An ability that states "this ability recharges if you haven't attacked, used an object, or cast a spell for 5 rounds" is basically a 4e "encounter" power. It can be categorized as an encounter power. It can be balanced as an encounter power. It even can be called an encounter power!

Then, instead of "encounter powers recharge after 5 minutes of rest" we just have a different recharge mechanism.

You can build a 6e where each Power Source or even Class has a different recharge mechanism for encounter powers that fits the verisimilitude level you like.

You can even note that "extreme and repeated use of encounter powers and rapidly recharging them can cause exhaustion, similar to the effects of trying to fight for many minutes or hours on end can."

---

Popping back to the more general topic at hand...

One thought I had was to take the Power Sources and make them more part of the game.

Power Sources become the excuse for why your PC is awesome. You'd actually have Power Sources as a mechanical component to your PC.

A level 1 Fighter might have a Naturally Physically Gifted power source, or Extensive Training power source. Or even Dragon Blooded power source.

Power Sources would state what categories they belong to. And maybe they would be "potential" and "activated" states.

So if you bathed in the blood of a dragon at level 4, this gives you the _potential_ power source; then at level 5 you could activate the "Dragon Blooded" power source when you have the character build resources for it.

Now there might be a cap on how high Martial powers go, level wise. Maybe all level 6+ fighter powers are both Martial and have another keyword.

Some classes might get "power source slots" for free as they gain levels, while others would have to burn feats. So a Fighter might get a "Power Source" slot at level 5, 10, 15 and 20 for free, while a Wizard wouldn't.

As part of this, it means that a level 20 fighter isn't just someone who is good at weapons. Instead, they are Extremely Trained at level 1, and have become Dragon Blooded at level 5. Then, in T2 adventures, they became Chosen by a God and in T3 they Broke the Loom of Fate, and finally claimed Will to Power and ascended themselves to demigodhood.

GalacticAxekick

2021-07-19, 10:43 PM

Sure, but story wise they do recharge "at the start of each encounter".No, they dont.

If a spell like Burning Hands (an arcane flamethrower) recharges literally at the start of each encounter, then I'm using it once per combat encounter, or once per exploration encounter, or once per interaction encounter.

If it recharges after 5 rounds of inactivity (30 seconds) I can use it repeatedly to weld a bridge or other structure together (an exploration encounter), to punctuate key moments in a stage performance (an interaction encounter), or even to fight a battle (provided an ally who protects me while I move around and recharge the ability).

I could torch the countryside of a tribe that I despise. I could send smoke or flares as signals in Morse. I could melt a glacier that blocks my path, or that contains a frozen creature. I could sift through a library and incinerate every book I deem worthy of censure.

None of that fits in a literal "encounter power" framework, but all pfcthis fits in a rest framework.

Even 4e encounter powers recharge not at the start of each encounter, but after 5 minutes of rest.

Yakk

2021-07-20, 11:08 AM

Yes, I'm glad you seem to understand the mechanics of what I'm saying.

I'm sad you don't understand the other words.

But life is suffering.

OACSNY97

2021-07-21, 04:09 PM

Sure, but story wise they do recharge "at the start of each encounter".

[SNIP]

---

Popping back to the more general topic at hand...

One thought I had was to take the Power Sources and make them more part of the game.

Power Sources become the excuse for why your PC is awesome. You'd actually have Power Sources as a mechanical component to your PC.

A level 1 Fighter might have a Naturally Physically Gifted power source, or Extensive Training power source. Or even Dragon Blooded power source.

Power Sources would state what categories they belong to. And maybe they would be "potential" and "activated" states.

So if you bathed in the blood of a dragon at level 4, this gives you the _potential_ power source; then at level 5 you could activate the "Dragon Blooded" power source when you have the character build resources for it.

Now there might be a cap on how high Martial powers go, level wise. Maybe all level 6+ fighter powers are both Martial and have another keyword.

Some classes might get "power source slots" for free as they gain levels, while others would have to burn feats. So a Fighter might get a "Power Source" slot at level 5, 10, 15 and 20 for free, while a Wizard wouldn't.

As part of this, it means that a level 20 fighter isn't just someone who is good at weapons. Instead, they are Extremely Trained at level 1, and have become Dragon Blooded at level 5. Then, in T2 adventures, they became Chosen by a God and in T3 they Broke the Loom of Fate, and finally claimed Will to Power and ascended themselves to demigodhood.

Yakk, I've been trying to wrap my mind around what you're saying from a game design perspective, because it sounds like it could be fun, thematic, and allow for lots of interesting combinations, but I just don't get where all these extra power sources come from. Should I be likening them to 3x's Prestige Classes or 4e's themes/paragon paths/epic destinies?

Yakk

2021-07-22, 09:26 AM

I'd think about "Power Source"s more like attuned magic items or feats?

Back in 4e, each power had a "power source" keyword. Martial, Divine, etc. The idea is to give that some mechanical heft in character building.

So your class would have abilities you could get at various levels, and those abilities in turn would have power source keywords.

In this sketch, characters would have a set of power sources, and power sources could be LATENT or ACTIVE. A latent power source is like in the fiction, where "you are the son of a god" but you either don't know it, or don't know how to harness its power. The LATENT/ACTIVE split is mechanics to enable that kind of story. It also means you can do something in a game that story-wise would explain the power source without it having as large a mechancial effect until later in your advancement (so, when you drink the heart-blood of a dragon, it doesn't instantly power you up; you have a LATENT power source).

Each Power Source would be a bit feat-like and a bit background-like. It gives you some mechanical features. Its most important part is that it unlocks abilities from your class.

The design goal is to (a) provide a means of story-based advancement for your PC more meaty than "I found a magic sword", (b) provide story-based reasons why a level 20 guy with a sword is as big a threat as someone who can cast wish.

Going back to a 4e style model, imagine if a bunch of powers instead of being Martial where Martial, Divine or Martial, Shadow or Martial, Elemental. In order to pick a power with Elemental power source keyword, you'd have to have an active Elemental power source. And that past a certain level, all powers where not pure Martial (lower level powers would upgrade when used at a higher slot with more dice of damage etc, but there are no epic-tier pure Martial powers).

The same would probably become true of Wizards; Arcane, Infernal spells could exist, which a wizard can't learn without somehow having access to the power of the 9 hells. Infernal blood? A pact? Maybe they have a trapped devil they are drawing power off of? All are possible power sources.

At level 1, everyone would get to pick a power source that aligns with the class's primary power source. And you could (as a character build option) have a latent power source as well. Like, you are Natural Athlete (Martial) activated as a Fighter 1, but unknown to you you have The Blood of a Dragon as a latent power source.

Now, as a Fighter, you have access to only Marital powers until you activate The Blood of a Dragon.

In 5e parlance, at level 5/11/17 the Fighter class gets to activate 1 power source, sort of like an attunement slot (but harder to swap).

As an example of what they might feel like:

Natural Athlete (Martial)
Latent: Gain 1 HP per HD.
Active: If you don't already add your proficiency bonus to a str/dex/con save or ability check, add 1/2 of your proficiency bonus. If you already add your proficiency bonus, add an additional +1.

Blood of the Dragon (Elemental)
Latent: Pick an associated dragon damage type. You have resistance to that damage type.
Active: As a bonus action when your HP are at half HP or below, you can invoke the dragon for the next minute or until you are above half HP. While invoking the dragon, your weapon attacks deal 1d6 additional damage of that damage type, you are immune to that damage type, and on your turn you have a 30' flight speed but fall at the end of your turn, and creatures have disadvantage on saves against taking that damage type from you. You can do this once before completing a long rest.

Maybe you can have up to your proficiency bonus power sources, you start with 1 active, and making a power source active costs a feat. Fighters (and maybe other less magical classes) get "free power source activations" as they gain levels.

BardofLore

2021-08-09, 11:25 PM

This all sounds really exciting! Do you think we could put together a version of this concept in a way that's playable, so we can see how fun it is?

(squeeeeeeeeee I've been thinking about this for years it's really exciting to see that someone else wants to do it!!!!!!)

Edit 1: My favorite things about 4e are the hit point progression/healing surge system & the at-will/encounter/daily ability system. I also like how spells can have levels based on the level you need to cast them, which all-together is way easier to fine-tune in terms of balance and play experience!! One thing I really like is how 4e has "shift" movement, which is a counter-play option against attacks of opportunity, which itself is counterplay! It creates an engaging dynamic, I think. :3

One other thing I like about 5e is the bonus/reaction action system. With a (somewhat restrictive) action economy, you can give characters plenty of play options and encounter/daily abilities without it rendering a character too over/under-powered. A reaction can be used to cast shield, parry with a weapon, attack of opportunity, grapple someone running past you, counterspell, and more, depending on what powers your class can give you. I also like the concentration system somewhat, since pre-casting buffs & traps is a slow part of the game that makes it harder to balance. One thing I notice: players in 5e often have their spells printed out in card format on card stock, which speeds up the game. It would be really nice if we had that for all abilities and weapons! Even professions and languages. Cards are really cool and I like them! (I wouldn't replace the reference sheet with them, hehehe. They would supplement the reference sheet with information that you would otherwise have to look up in a book or database, which slows gameplay.)

I do miss the move action thing instead of footage/round, although that is a personal preference. What I think is popular is "omg look at my super cool OC that I get to roleplay as for 6 hours a week," and so making it just feel cool to play the game is very valid.

I want to have custom/concept-classes, such as one where the character has spellcasting abilities centered around creative uses of time-manipulation exclusively. Slow/haste/expeditious retreat, a spell that lets you shift your full speed as a move action, shifting as a reaction to avoid attacks that affect areas, rewinding time to heal someone, some kind of counter-spell ability, true strike, lots of stuff! That's the sort of thing that would be homebrew under a new system, I think, but I'd like the system itself to have tools that let you homebrew a lot more effectively, with "under the hood," content that explained the math and walked readers through the design process/choices. It would probably have to be a companion book!

I feel like you could basically churn out powers as variations on a theme? Like a shield spell reaction encounter arcane +5AC + parry skill reaction at-will martial +2AC, for example. And maybe a player is willing to use their limited ability customization slots to have both, if that's what they prioritize!

OACSNY97

2021-08-11, 07:45 AM

Nuptup

2021-08-11, 09:19 PM

Bringing a different system into this being Pathfinder 2e, I would love to see this "6e" idea separate feats in a similar way to PF2e, allowing characters to invest in those more flavorful feats that are background/race/skills/theme oriented without feeling like they're gimping themselves. This could obviously pose some issues with some races that have practically no feat support, but I love this aspect about PF2e allowing me to fully invest into my class with feats and not feel burdened by taking racial or skill feats since they're a separate category.

Another thing PF2e does nicely which is very similar to your idea of substituting subclass to multiclass, pathfinder has an excellent feat-based multi-classing system.

However, something I did personally with 4e was allowing someone to "Heroic Multiclass" via their Theme, which gave them effectively the hybrid stuff from one class. So they were a 100% Fighter for example, and then they also were a hybrid half-wizard or half-rogue, etc. In this case the class you choose from hybrid only gave you the features and one at-will, however you were free to replace main-class at-wills, encounters and dailies for valid half-class ones if you wanted. Pretty much, I just gave DnD4e the Gestalt system using the hybrid system instead of the multiclass feats because i feel the hybrid system is a better way to make you feel like X-class than the feats did.

This same kind of system could serve as the base for what you end up doing with your subclasses or with the stuff Yakk mentioned about power sources actually mattering. So, you could be a fighter, but you might want a draconic influence, so now you can pick up powers with the "Draconic" keyword that could come from sorcerer for example. Or your fighter could dedicate to the arcane arts, studying under a wizard in their downtime and granting them the "Arcane" powersource keyword, allowing them to start picking up Arcane powers. You could then convert pretty much the entire swordmage power catalogue into a mix of "Arcane , Martial" powers, that way if a fighter starts studying, he gets wizard stuff, but also might take swordmage stuff, or if a wizard starts training their body, they would gain access to the "Martial" keyword and could take tide of iron from fighter or dimensional slash from swordmage. Anyway, I just want to say that I REALLY support the idea of maybe keeping the classes themselves functioning as skeletons with their basic features acting as what defines them, but then allowing the power source to be independent from that and then allowing them to choose 1 power source at level 1, then if they choose to, get more later to develop more complex builds.

Example 1: I have a farm boy (Latent Martial Keyword, +1 to some stuff similar to background benefits and allows basic training with some equipment.) who lost his mom to a wolf attack and his dad was too old to go kill it. The boy wakes up one day hearing the hens go wild and rushes to action, grabbing a feed trough with his left arm and a pitchfork in his right hand, choosing to Fight(er) and gaining the Active Martial keyword. He runs out and fights away the wolf, not killing it, but managing to drive it away by bashing it with his "shield" and stabbing it, but he's been injured himself. He carries himself into town and finds the chapel, kneeling at the alter and holding his arm. He begs whatever god that's willing to help him to heal his wounds and help him get strong enough to kill the wolf once and for all. To his surprise, his wounds close and he feels empowered by The Light (Latent Divine Keyword). He stands, thanking The Light and leaves on his own personal crusade, guided by the setting sun into the woods where the wolf has fled. He tracks it down and eventually it leaps at him but it once again pushes it away before shouting that The Light shall purge it (Active Divine Keyword) and kills the wolf with a Smite.
This is obviously a rushed example, but i think this type of system could work wonderfully.

Example 2: An elven girl has been studying at wizard college for most of her recent life, learning the fundamental building blocks of the arcane arts (Latent Arcane Keyword). She returns to her home on the edge of town, eager to have dinner with her family but something is wrong. She smells smoke in the air, her ears twitch as she hears a scream and the hair on her neck stands on edge. She starts to zero in on the source, relying on her elven roots (Latent Nature Keyword) before she feels a nature spirit flow through her and suddenly she's transformed into a large cat, sprinting towards the scream (Active Primal Keyword). She sees her neighbor's house ablaze but the door is blocked. She wishes she was inside before she imagine herself breaking down into arcane fragments and reappearing inside, Blinking through the wall (Active Arcane Keyword) before she bites the hem of her friend's shirt and looks for an exit.
Again, a short and rushed example, but I really like this idea.

Tell me what you guys think. But, I think allowing the raw class features to be determined first, then layering a source on top would be cool. Like, you could have a fighter that has the martial and divine keywords because they don't outright have the perfect mastery over their techniques yet, but they supplement that with divine guidance. Or you could have a barbarian that actually controls their rage and doesn't just go into a blind frenzy, instead channeling that power through controlled effort (which is pretty much a Martial power-source barbarian which is the main inspiration of the Berserker class in 4e.

Also, while it's a very small portion of the classes in the game, is there going to be any love for the Shadow classes, or will they be baked in with the others? Assassin merging with rogue, vampire becoming a theme like werewolf/bear/rat etc, and any others.

Long and lengthy write-up, but I just wanted to get it out there since I'm joining the conversation so late.

Edit: 8/11/2021 10:40 p.m. CST

So, I thought of a cool way to make the sources act in a way where they're a progression of their own. Someone earlier had mentioned that if this was done in 5e, you could allow prof-mod sources, and i'm sure you could find a similar progression (maybe baked into class progression tables) that works, allowing different classes to be more or less diverse depending on how powerful the base class is versus how powerful the subclass/power-source choice is. So, my thought was, let's say every character gets at minimum 3 "power source slots" (PSS's) with intensive, powerful base classes getting only 3 and more flexible/adaptive classes getting more, maybe up to 6 or something. And then each power-source has 3 stages so any class that only has 3 can get max output from one, while classes that don't need max (or can afford to vary) can take more and get deeper into others. Meanwhile, the classes themselves also provide a bonus on their own which can allow different and unique combos. So, the idea is as follows:

Fighter Class: Grants HP, Simple and Martial Weapons, Up to scale armor and shields, other misc like skills. You also gain access to Martial At-Will powers, choosing two from the appropriate list and Martial Encounter powers, choosing 1 from the appropriate list. You then choose a power source that fuels your abilities.

Divine Novice: Grants +1 to all Divine attack rolls and a +1 to all healing you deal or healing you take, grants access to Divine At-Will powers (Or Divine Encounter powers if you have access to Divine At-Wills already, or Divine Daily powers if you have access to Divine Encounters already.), choosing 1 from the appropriate list.
Divine Adept: Grants +2 to all Divine attack rolls and a +3 to all healing you deal or healing you take, grants access to Divine Encounter powers (Or Divine Daily powers if you have access to Divine Encounters already.), choosing 1 from the appropriate list.
Divine Master: Grants +3 to all Divine attack rolls and a +5 to all healing you deal or healing you take, grants access to Divine Daily powers, choosing 1 from the appropriate list.

Martial Novice: Grants +1 to all weapon attack rolls and a +1 to AC, grants access to Martial At-Will powers (Or Martial Encounter powers if you have access to Martial At-Wills already, or Martial Daily powers if you have access to Martial Encounters already.), choosing 1 from the appropriate list.
Martial Adept: Grants +2 to all weapon attack rolls and a +2 to AC, grants access to Martial Encounter powers (Or Martial Daily powers if you have access to Martial Encounters already.), choosing 1 from the appropriate list.
Martial Master: Grants +3 to all weapon attack rolls and a +3 to AC, grants access to Martial Daily powers, choosing 1 from the appropriate list.

Primal Novice: Grants +1 to all Primal attack rolls and a +1 to Primal damage rolls, grants access to Primal At-Will powers (Or Primal Encounter powers if you have access to Primal At-Wills already, or Primal Daily powers if you have access to Primal Encounters already.), choosing 1 from the appropriate list.
Primal Adept: Grants +2 to all Primal attack rolls and a +3 to Primal damage rolls, grants access to Primal Encounter powers (Or Primal Daily powers if you have access to Primal Encounters already.), choosing 1 from the appropriate list.
Primal Master: Grants +3 to all Primal attack rolls and a +5 to Primal damage rolls, grants access to Primal Daily powers, choosing 1 from the appropriate list.

The above example would allow a character that starts as a fighter and chooses the Martial source to get access to All martial powers as would be normal for a level 1 martial fighter (2 at-wills, 1 encounter, 1 daily) or they can choose the Divine source, forgoing their Martial Daily power to instead pick up a Pure Divine At-Will power (Cleric or Invoker implement power for example) or a combination Divine , Martial At-Will power (Warpriest, Paladin or Avenger weapon power for example).

This is a narrow example, but I hope it helps explain what I'm talking about. This would be for a level 1 character, and for example, maybe fighters get more than 3 of the PSS's, allowing them to fully max out Martial to keep their attack bonus high while also affording to off-spec into something else, meanwhile a wizard might be more pidgeon-holes into choosing only one thing due to their focus on improving as a class overall instead of focused on subclass things. This could allow a wizard to have the Wizard casting features, meanwhile being a full Divine Master, having full at-will/encounter and daily divine powers at later levels while still tapping into arcane at-wills and encounters as well. Or it could allow a rogue to pick up primal powers, granting them things like recuperating strike if they use a 2-handed weapon allowing for a rather healthy rogue, or allowing them to pick up a shapeshift power from druid and be a roguish leopard on the battlefield.

The combinations are pretty awesome to think about, but it also still gives people a reason to go completely into their primary source as it gives them the math needed to stay relevant and can also grant them intrinsic benefits like the additional healing done/received for the Divine source, or the necessary bulk to survive on the front lines via Martial source's AC bonus, or a damage bonus for Primal since they channel the destructive power of nature. This probably isn't a perfect system as it kind of associates different power sources with roles, like the damage for primal pushing them towards strikers while the defenses from martial pushes them towards defenders, but it can also be more flexible like the divine allowing you to either be a more competent leader or defender by increasing your own survivability on the front lines.

You could also allow each tier of dedication (Novice/Adept/Master) to grant a unique, new power specific to that source. For example:

Martial Crescendo (Granted by Martial Master) [Daily]: In the blink of an eye, you devastate the battle-field before returning your weapon to a resting position as the effect of your attack sinks in. Shift up to your speed, at the end of this shift, use a Martial at-will of your choice against each enemy you were adjacent to during the shift. All effects take effect at the end of this power regardless of where you are.

or

Primal Savagery (Granted by Primal Adept) [Encounter]: As a minor action, you let savage primal spirits inhabit your body to wreak havoc on your behalf. Until the start of your next turn, any Primal attack you make has combat advantage and gains the following effect. Effect: The square that the target(s) occupies and/or any squares affected by this power become difficult terrain until the start of your next turn.

or

Divine Plea (Granted by Divine Novice) [Encounter]: When an allied creature drops to 0 hit points, as an immediate interrupt the ally can spend a healing surge to heal for their surge value.

Now, I don't know about the intrinsic balance of what you're aiming for, or how losing a daily in favor of an off-spec at-will would balance out, or how these specific ideas for powers granted by PCC's tier upgrades, but I really like having more at-will options as a player so I can be less 1-trick pony-esq and I feel this could allow people to still choose a role while being less hard-coded into only that role, granting them the mandatory class mechanics to fill such a role (combat superiority or a defender mark in general) while allowing them to be more flexible like other tabletop editions. This is one thing I liked about 5e's DMG, allowing really anyone to mark a target when they hit it, allowing any build/class/character to be the "defender", even the monk/rogue multiclass who spams ki-points to take dodge action while using rogue level 5 to take half damage when hit. It allowed people to be a role that their class otherwise wasn't designed for, and i thoroughly liked that. It's the same reason people like swordmage/gish/battlemage builds because having a full caster be the main tank is just dope.

A quick mock of each power source would be something like this. (Ignoring all the text talking about the powers gained.)

Arcane: +1/2/3 to Arcane attack rolls, (I have no clue, maybe something to do with spell range or size?)
Divine: +1/2/3 to Divine attack rolls, +1/3/5 to healing done and received (doesn't apply twice if you heal yourself).
Martial: +1/2/3 to Martial attack rolls, +1/2/3 to AC, +0/1/2 to NAD of choice, +0/0/1 to different NAD.
Primal: +1/2/3 to Primal attack rolls, +1/3/5 to all damage rolls.
Psionic: +1/2/3 to Psionic attack rolls, +1/2/3 to all NADs. (Probably OP, but Psionics are weird and I have no good ideas...)
Shadow: +1/2/3 to Shadow attack rolls, +1/2/3 to all damage rolls (double if target is granting combat advantage).

I also want to specify that, the +1/2/3 is not inherently matching the Heroic/Paragon/Epic progression, but is instead matching the power source's Novice/Adept/Master progression which can and should scale faster than that. I believe that you will start as a novice at level 1 in whatever source you choose. I think the maximum attack bonus you should get from these should be at +3 though, even if you add more ranks beyond master for a purist who doesn't want to dabble in other options, granting them effects as they continue into it, perhaps still increasing the secondary benefits and riders. But, I think every character should start as a novice in something, and they should get a new source increase every 5 levels or so. So, 1,6,11,16,21,26 maybe? giving people 6 to play with, and maybe adding a feat or something that allows you to just take an "Advanced training" in a source to get the next rank in it? I dunno. I'm spit-ballin ideas now.

Edit: 8/12/2021 9:40 p.m. CST

You could also add more specific options like this.

Draconic Novice: You gain access to the Draconic Sorcerer's "xx" class feature and resistance dependent on your color.
Draconic Adept: You grow dragon wings and gain a fly speed of x ft. You also gain the dragonborn's breath weapon ability.
Draconic Master: You become immune to damage matching your color, all attacks you make deal 3 additional damage of you color's type, and you gain the "Dragon Form" daily power. (Which would just be a temporary transformation into a dragon.)

Demonic Novice: You gain access to the Hexblade's Warlock Pact Weapon class feature and gain the appropriate at-will attack.
Demonic Adept: You gain the tiefling's "xx" racial feature and the "Demonic Influence" encounter power. (Something similar to the Black-Hearted Knave Theme's power, except it only targets enemies.)
Demonic Master: You embody the demonic might of a powerful demon host, physically altering your body with obvious demonic influence. Your skin grows thick granting you +2 AC and your Pact weapon is replaces by a deadly natural weapon of the same type. It shares the statistics of your Pact weapon, but does not occupy your hand(s) and cannot be disarmed.

Just wanted to add some more ideas I had that could serve as examples that aren't restricted to only the core sources, but would be neat options to add to a character who doesn't care to leave their core classes source capabilities.