PDA

View Full Version : Random 4E Ability Generator



Arlanthe
2008-06-15, 05:32 PM
Rejoice, GitP friends! We can take down much of the "homebrew" section now that 4E has been released. We no longer need to creatively think of a broad range of effects and abilities in a detailed gaming system that facilitates this.

Now we can create a random 4E ability generator to do everything for us. Simply choose the "power" category and roll 4d10!

The first d10 will determine
i) if the effect is 1[W], 2[W], 3[W] damage, etc., in case of weapon attacks
ii) or which die will be used in case of spell effects (none, d6, d8, d10, etc.)

The second d10 roll will determine
i) the bonus ability on attack rolls (Str, Sta, etc)
ii) the bonus ability on magic rolls (Int, Cha, etc.)

The third d10 roll will randomly determine
i) to-hit and defense pairings for attacks (Str v. AC, Str v. Sta, etc.)
ii) to-hit and defense saving throws for spells (Int v. Will, Cha v. Fort, etc.)

The final d10 will determine a specific effect from a small table of possibilities, i.e. “nothing”, or “target stunned for a round”, or “target slides some squares”, or “target performs the electric slide”.

And there you have it! The vast and creative powerscape of 4th Edition, boiled down to four elements per power!
No need for pesky conjuration spells that aren’t effects pinned to a die roll!
No need for sub-tables within a spell or ability requiring an almost insurmountable additional roll of a die!
No need to think about how a player created illusion might work against a foe!
No need for craftables to shake the engine train on the railroad track of your adventure!
No need for magic items with all manner of confusing abilities requiring a few extra moments of thought!

Viola! Now we can just crunch everything into this w + x + y + z formula.

Thinker
2008-06-15, 05:56 PM
Yeah, I hate it when someone tries to make things easy for their customers. If anything they should have made some arcane system with no discernible pattern. That way we could just guess if things would work as planned.

Arlanthe
2008-06-15, 06:04 PM
Yeah, I hate it when someone tries to make things easy for their customers. If anything they should have made some arcane system with no discernible pattern. That way we could just guess if things would work as planned.

You are right!

Let's resolve all encounters by having each side roll 3d6, highest roll wins!

That would make D&D easier still, more accessible to non-gamers, and would increase the gamer base by pulling in a lot of craps player!

spamoo
2008-06-15, 06:05 PM
As much as I love a satirical rant, I have to strongly disagree with this system. Each class plays a specific role where certain abilities (such as shifting the enemy as a rogue) wouldn't work very well. For the past few days, I have been working on a homebrew 4e Druid and I can assure you that every power has been carefully thought out. 4e is far from a random splattering of powers and I would hope that anyone who has an objective mind is able to see that.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-15, 06:11 PM
You are right!

Let's resolve all encounters by having each side roll 3d6, highest roll wins!

That would make D&D easier still, more accessible to non-gamers, and would increase the gamer base by pulling in a lot of craps player!

You do realize that there are actually some hugely successful RPGs whose resolution systems aren't *much* more complicated than that, yes?

Arlanthe
2008-06-15, 06:15 PM
4e is far from a random splattering of powers and I would hope that anyone who has an objective mind is able to see that.

Of course it isn't, my satirical rant is indeed oversimplified. I am just pointing out that this system is highly streamlined- indeed, but also very simple. In my opinion, in a bad way. Most powers are roughly the same, with a few special abilities that cluster where they make sense- in rogues, fighters etc.

You point out different classes have "roles". That is what really, really irks me about the whole thing. This "striker", "healer" whatever stuff. You have abilities super clustered in classes with very little overlap. For instance, unless you play a half-elf who takes the ranger off-class dual wield ability, a fighter or rogue cant dual wield anymore!

I understand that there will be a split- a lot of people will love and play 4E, a lot of people will stay with other editions. I am not saying 4E isn't thought out or unbalanced. I am just positing that this system is reaaaaallllly simple, and the powers show that.

marjan
2008-06-15, 06:35 PM
Let's resolve all encounters by having each side roll 3d6


GURPS? :smallbiggrin:

Kabump
2008-06-15, 06:46 PM
Sarcasm is wonderful isn't it? I am going to guess you have yet to actually PLAY 4e. Not saying you should if your not so inclined, merely that you haven't actually sat down and played a session with it. This reminded me of a post I read over on EnWorld, that is probably the best post I have read about 3x v 4. Here (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4287774&postcount=1) is said post. For what its worth, I like both 3.5 and 4.

Little_Rudo
2008-06-15, 07:03 PM
You point out different classes have "roles". That is what really, really irks me about the whole thing. This "striker", "healer" whatever stuff. You have abilities super clustered in classes with very little overlap. For instance, unless you play a half-elf who takes the ranger off-class dual wield ability, a fighter or rogue cant dual wield anymore!

Actually, I've found that a lot of classes can dip into other roles. Plenty of Fighter (a Defender) powers are able to deal significant damage, a Striker trait. The Rogue (a Striker) has a power that lets them move opponents a certain number of squares, which is more in the Controller territory. There are a myriad of other examples, these are just the ones that come to mind.

Also, unless I'm mistaken, any class can 'dual wield'. The only difference is, they can choose to attack only with one weapon or the other unless they're a Ranger - and, really, why should everyone be able to hit with two weapons in the same time it takes to hit with a single weapon?

WrstDmEvr
2008-06-15, 07:05 PM
Sarcasm is wonderful isn't it? I am going to guess you have yet to actually PLAY 4e. Not saying you should if your not so inclined, merely that you haven't actually sat down and played a session with it. This reminded me of a post I read over on EnWorld, that is probably the best post I have read about 3x v 4. Here (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4287774&postcount=1) is said post. For what its worth, I like both 3.5 and 4.

I would agree with you on that post, it's one of the best ones out there.

On the system: It's very simple. However, this makes combat less like "An encounter? All yours, Wizard" and more like "An encounter? Okay, whats the plan?". That's not putting it exactly how I meant, but you should get the idea.

Swordguy
2008-06-15, 07:17 PM
Sarcasm is wonderful isn't it? I am going to guess you have yet to actually PLAY 4e. Not saying you should if your not so inclined, merely that you haven't actually sat down and played a session with it. This reminded me of a post I read over on EnWorld, that is probably the best post I have read about 3x v 4. Here (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4287774&postcount=1) is said post. For what its worth, I like both 3.5 and 4.

That article should be reposted in its entirety in it's own thread (with full credit to the author of course) on these forums. It's extremely well-done.

Kabump
2008-06-15, 07:25 PM
Yeah i thought about that after posting it here. Think I will do that now.

JaxGaret
2008-06-15, 08:09 PM
This reminded me of a post I read over on EnWorld, that is probably the best post I have read about 3x v 4. Here (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4287774&postcount=1) is said post. For what its worth, I like both 3.5 and 4.

That's great stuff. It expands on and clarifies points I've made in the past few weeks, it'll be nice to link to in the future.

Thanks :smallsmile:

Arlanthe
2008-06-15, 08:13 PM
That article should be reposted in its entirety in it's own thread (with full credit to the author of course) on these forums. It's extremely well-done.

Meh, I have actually played a good chunk of the first mod to come out. I'm just not impressed with this argument. I am happy this fellow who created the post is happy with the switch.

On the other hand, I don't find the "infinite creation options, few when played" argument entirely convincing. Everyone has a "main schtick", and a bunch of minor ones. Also, I never really saw the wizard as being overpowered. A good DM takes into account an entire party and adjusts accordingly to create new challenges constantly.

We too have played the little chess dance already with swapping around with characters by shifting. It reminds me a little of some computer tactics games (not intended as an insult, just an observation).

As for us, we'll take the broad palatte of abilities in 3.5 over the narrower ones in 4.0. I'm getting the feeling I am in the minority about 4.0 around here ;)

JaxGaret
2008-06-15, 08:36 PM
Just wanted to point out a few things:


No need to think about how a player created illusion might work against a foe!

Dragon 364 is going to have an article on Illusions in 4e, and there has been much speculation about Illusionists being released in a future splatbook.


No need for craftables to shake the engine train on the railroad track of your adventure!

What? Is this a veiled stab at the removal of the Batman Wizard?

I am quite pleased that they got rid of Batman.


No need for magic items with all manner of confusing abilities requiring a few extra moments of thought!

Possibly to be released in the Adventurer's Vault.


Viola!

Cello!


Now we can just crunch everything into this w + x + y + z formula.

Yum, end of the alphabet crunch.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-06-15, 08:44 PM
Of course it isn't, my satirical rant is indeed oversimplified. I am just pointing out that this system is highly streamlined- indeed, but also very simple. In my opinion, in a bad way. Most powers are roughly the same, with a few special abilities that cluster where they make sense- in rogues, fighters etc.
And yet, the Fighter plays absolutely nothing like the Rogue.

The powers really aren't the same--for example, the fighter gets a power that brings enemies within 3 squares over to him and then hits them; meanwhile, the Rogue gets a power that hits a single target twice, or hits them and inflicts a big AC penalty. The powers are suited to the roles.


You point out different classes have "roles". That is what really, really irks me about the whole thing. This "striker", "healer" whatever stuff. You have abilities super clustered in classes with very little overlap. For instance, unless you play a half-elf who takes the ranger off-class dual wield ability, a fighter or rogue cant dual wield anymore!
Pet Peeve time!

The Two-Weapon Fighting and Two-Weapon Defense feats--which anyone can take--are actually how "dual wielding" is supposed to work! Offhand weapons are used to parry, and occasionally take advantage of openings created by the main hand. Attacking with both weapons simultaneously is pretty nonsensical--but if you want to do it, the Ranger class supports that, because it's been in D&D for so long. Actually, though, a bonus to defense and to damage (I would have gone with to-hit, but the game is abstract enough that damage works, too, and is better-balanced) makes a lot more sense. Everyone can wield two weapons. It's just that you need ranger powers--and Rangers are now "Two-Weapon Fighter or Archer", you're not forced into the "woodsman" flavor, although it's still an option--to get powers that attack with both simultaneously.


I understand that there will be a split- a lot of people will love and play 4E, a lot of people will stay with other editions. I am not saying 4E isn't thought out or unbalanced. I am just positing that this system is reaaaaallllly simple, and the powers show that.
It may look simple, but it's delightfully diverse and tactical in play. It's 3.5 which has the simple combat--just hack at the enemy, cast the best spells you can afford to use, and so on. 4E suppports and rewards teamwork and tactics very well.

Rockphed
2008-06-15, 09:29 PM
Everyone can wield two weapons. It's just that you need ranger powers--and Rangers are now "Two-Weapon Fighter or Archer", you're not forced into the "woodsman" flavor, although it's still an option--to get powers that attack with both simultaneously.

I think as I was reading through the Ranger's melee powers, the 3.5 class that I thought of was the Dervish, though that might have been a fighter power that I was looking at.

Roderick_BR
2008-06-15, 09:45 PM
How about a 3.5 random generator? :smalltongue:

Roll 1d6
1: Wizard batmans the scene.
2: Cleric clericzillas the combat.
3: Druid druidzillas the encounter.
4: Rogue does something worth mentioning.
5: Some non-caster meeler try something and fail.
6: Monk is reminded why his class features sucks.

Bleen
2008-06-15, 09:55 PM
A good DM takes into account an entire party and adjusts accordingly to create new challenges constantly.
The fact that a good DM can run a system with design flaws well does not justify the flaws of that system. In fact, the fact that the DM has to work around those flaws on a near-constant basis shows that there is a flaw in the system.

For the flaws I have seen pointed out and acknowledged for 4e, I have yet to see anything that properly justifies the flaws in 3.5e short of something that comes down to "Yeah well DM can do X!" which basically doesn't justify those flaws in the system but rather seems like (if you were liberal about the definition and spirit of the term) a violation of Oberoni Fallacy.

Admittedly, some issues are so rare that they do not merit a very large mark against 3.5 (Pun-Pun almost never comes into actual play,) but the fact that Wizards are very easily broken using basic functions of the core rulebooks is not.

marjan
2008-06-15, 10:02 PM
6: Monk is reminded why his class features sucks.

WHAAAT? Since when UMD-ing Divine Power sucks? :smalltongue:

Crow
2008-06-15, 10:05 PM
It may look simple, but it's delightfully diverse and tactical in play. It's 3.5 which has the simple combat--just hack at the enemy, cast the best spells you can afford to use, and so on. 4E suppports and rewards teamwork and tactics very well.

For a couple rounds...then you At-Will grind the rest of the time.

Indon
2008-06-15, 10:32 PM
I was rather expecting a workable system here.

I mean, the game's been out for a couple weeks now. I'm surprised the entire thing hasn't been distilled to a set of simple equasions by now.

Kabump
2008-06-15, 10:51 PM
I was rather expecting a workable system here.

I mean, the game's been out for a couple weeks now. I'm surprised the entire thing hasn't been distilled to a set of simple equasions by now.

It is workable. The system works just fine. Again, just because a system is not to your personal preference, does not mean it is broken. It just doesnt work the way you want it or like it too, or the way you are used to it working. You can't please all the people all the time.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-06-15, 10:53 PM
For a couple rounds...then you At-Will grind the rest of the time.

I hate to use this line, but... have you played the game?

The at-will powers can and should be used tactically. I mean, look at the wizard's Thunderwave. Combine the Rogue's something Riposte at-will with the Fighter's mark or the Paladin's Divine Challenge, to make extra-sure the creature won't attack the Rogue.

And the higher level you go, the more powers you get.

It's really fun to play.

Roland St. Jude
2008-06-15, 11:16 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Please don't troll the forums like this. We're not really keen on edition wars here.