PDA

View Full Version : Adapting 4e to playstyle: brainstorm, anyone?



Erk
2008-07-04, 01:58 AM
I just got my first good look at 4e books, and I'm not incredibly excited, but I'm also not against it. As with 3.5e (I skipped 3e... went 2e to 3.5 only about two years ago) I'm feeling like I'll need to essentially homebrew the entire world before I have something I am comfortable with.

It seems to me that there's a bit of a void of rebuilds for 4e designed to address either (a) things that are better with 3.5e that have been removed, or (b) things that are "wrong" with both for the worlds I like to make. I don't think there's much abnormal about my prefered worlds, so any other homebrewers' input is welcome. Further, since I am the group's GM and am just learning this, needless to say I've never played it. Thus advice from players would also be welcome. And no, I'm not likely to just sit down and play it out of the box, where would the fun be in that? Worse than playing unmodded oblivion!

Let me be up front: many unpopular features of 4e are basically things I was doing myself the whole time anyway. Minions dieing quickly by fiat to make large battles feasible? Got that from BESM ages ago. NPCs having only a sketched background and not following player rules? I was up front about that when I started making my games.

Conditions I change in 3.5e
low to medium magic, PC magic classes nerfed a great deal. The latter is no longer needed but to achieve the former something must be done. Typically in 3.5e I made a modified sorceror and paladin class into the cleric and wizard roles, made wizard an NPC prestige class, and removed clerics or made them amazingly rare. The magic items existant were mostly "lost technology" type magic or divine relics. No point going into too much detail
total removal of default fluff
eliminate halfbreed fever by making halfbreeds distinct species
add all kinds of customisation options like flavour feats/traits and bloodlines, make things like these more available without costing the player as long as player clears it with me (to prevent minmaxing) and uses it as an RP trait. Big fan of letting numbers aid RP, and yes I know it is not necessary.

Things that I already feel need fixing in 4e
More skills, skills NPCs would use and players might want to use. I am coming to see the value of the rankless skill system, but players need a mechanic to learn how to do this stuff. I have had hours of campaign fun RPing fixing a boat before (carpentry, use rope, profession sailor, and tons of other missing skills) and I will not lose that.
Tweaks. This system looks smooth, so smooth it is flat and boring. 3.5e, however, was more or less the same. I'm not experienced enough with 4e to know what these tweaks will/should be, but they must exist. So far I think my influences will primarily be Unearthed Arcana from 3.5e, player's option from 2e, and Big Eyes Small Mouth.
way too much fluff and too many unrealistic things, such as the frequently-cited range of the longbow. The game needs to be grittied up a bit
Similarly, many reports seem to indicate the challenge is too low. I haven't had a chance to test that. How easy is it to accidentally kill a PC? Will taking magic out make it easier? Having the party barbarian slip and get impaled on a spike trap is not something I want to miss out on: barrels o' laughs. (that isn't sarcasm. Barg's pointless death is still spoken of in my gaming circles, the DM did a great job of playign it up)
multiclassing: even my softest core gamer likes the 3.5 system. I wonder if there is a way to fit or fiat it in somehow (see what I did there?)


So, I'm going to wait a bit before posting more, because I'm really curious to hear what "gritty" or "low magic" (I am not hardcore on either, hence the ""s) GMs have done with 4e so far, and what 4e vets might suggest to help with this.

Pronounceable
2008-07-04, 12:45 PM
If you're looking for grit or low magic, you're looking at the wrong place. DnD was never exactly gritty and what existed of grit in previous incarnations is completely drained in 4E. Low magic is doable, but requires extensive homebrewing which amount to a whole new homebrew system anyway.

You missed two VERY important bits of needafix:
1) Dragobort
2) Emoling


And no, I'm not likely to just sit down and play it out of the box, where would the fun be in that?

You sound like a die hard homebrewer. You got the attitude right, seems you just need extra practice in amputating mechanics off of systems and grafting the still bleeding crunch onto other systems (assuming you have time for such stuff).


Tangent: There seems to be an awful lot of homebrewers intent on gritty and low magic games (guilty as charged). Seems more than half "new system" or "list of houserules" threads are by folks aiming for "grit" and "semi realism" over "power overwhelming" and "cool incarnate". If I didn't know better, I'd say there's potential to create such a system from scratch in the gitp boards.

Goober4473
2008-07-04, 03:56 PM
4th Edition is not gritty at all. Characters can get beat up, take 5 minutes, and be fine. That being said, I don't think it's really necessary to change much to make the game feel differant. Just change the names and descriptions of things, mostly. Most effects aren't that tied to their fluff, so you can make it up easily. Make those level 29 daily wizard spells just seem like somewhat powerful magic, not epic amazing stuff. Really, they just do more damage than lower level things, and monsters at that level have more hit points, so it's not thematically very differant from low level at all.

Refluffing is insanely easy in 4.0. Quarter staff implement is a tree growing out of your back? Take quick draw and get a staff. It shoots sleep powerder and razor leaves? Take cloud of daggers and sleep and refluff them. You have a magic gun that shoots bolts of ice? Buy a frost longbow and be a ranger.

Likewise, hit points are extremely abstract, and when you take 50 points of damage that would kill any normal person ten times over, you're not some epically tough hero that can take massive wounds and be fine, you've just expended a lot of energy avoiding being killed by it, and got away with a scratch, perhaps. So even high level characters with a million hit points that do tons of damage don't have to be especially god-like.

As for the skills, I've said before, I love that there aren't any non-adventuring skills. Why? Because now I don't have to lose my adventuring capabilities just because I want to roleplay, and I'm not limited by the skill system. If I want to be a master baker at level 1, I'll put it in my character description, and leave it at that. No need to take my points out of Acrobatics and Dungeoneering, meaning that I'll get to have fun throughout most of the game (and D&D is generally all about adventuring), while I'll still get to have that rare instance where baking comes in handy, and I'll have the roleplaying elements of being a baker all the time.

Why should roleplaying have rules like combat does in D&D?

[Edit]: Challenge-wise, a normal encounter will usually beat up the players, but they can easily bounce back given a short rest and go on to have a few more encounter that day. But more difficult encounters become increasingly deadly, and often increasingly boring after a point, since characters will run out of encounter an daily powers, and it will turn into a trading of at-will attacks until the enemy or the players die.

I'm currently running a game with horror elements, and it's worked out fine. Somewhat difficult encounters (a level or two above the party) with dangerous terrain and some scary descriptions, have made it pretty terrifying without having to change the rules. A normal encounter tends to use up a lot of the party's encounter resources (hit points, encounter powers, and action points), and not too many daily resources (healing surges and daily powers), but a significantly more difficult encounter doesn't just tap into their reserve daily resources, it drains all of their encoutner resources, and then the party is out of things to do until they can take a short rest.

The balance I've found to make it scary, but not boring, is to make it just hard enough that they feel like they're gonna run out of encoutner resources, and that people are gonna start dying, but not quite hard enough that they run out for much of the fight (mayeb a round or two). Also, using a monster's best stuff up front scares them into thinking it's gonna keep dishing out that much hurt, even if it's not. And, if you want to make a long, difficult fight, give the players extra options, like using the terrain to attack, or pulling crazy stunts, or using skill challenges, so they don't run out of interesting things to do just because they don't have enough encounter powers.

Multiclassing: I think multiclassing works very well in 4th Edition, except that paragon multiclassing isn't balanced with paragon paths. I'm fixing that by throwing in limited class features for paragon multiclassing, at level 11 and 16.

This is my complete fix of multiclassing:
Paragon Multiclassing
Paragon multiclassing does not require any feats beyond the initial class-specific feat. This allows a character to spread out the replacement of powers with multiclass powers beyond the Heroic Tier while still taking a paragon multiclass.
At 11th level, if you select a paragon multiclass, you have the option to replace one level 1 at-will power from your main class with that of your second.

Marking multiclass note: Using any class feature that marks an enemy removes any other marks you have placed on any enemies with a different class’s class feature (but not powers).

Cleric
Divine Connection (11th Level): You gain the Channel Divinity cleric class feature. If you had this class feature from another class, it is a separate ability. If you gain any additional uses of Channel Divinity, they apply to only one class’s feature.
Healing Word (11th Level): You can use the Healing Word power once per encounter, instead of once per day.
Healer’s Lore (16th Level): You gain the Healer’s Lore class feature.

Fighter
Combat Superiority (11th Level): You gain the Combat Superiority class feature.
Fighter Weapon Talent (11th Level): You gain the Fighter Weapon Talent class feature. Note that this does not stack with the +1 bonus provided by the encounter ability of Student of the Sword.
Acolyte’s Challenge (16th Level): You gain the Combat Challenge class feature.

Paladin
Divine Connection (11th Level): You gain the Channel Divinity cleric class feature. If you had this class feature from another class, it is a separate ability. If you gain any additional uses of Channel Divinity, they apply to only one class’s feature.
Lay on Hands (11th Level): You can use the paladin’s Lay on Hands class feature once per day.
Divine Challenge (16th Level): You may use the Divine Challenge power at will, instead of once per encounter.

Ranger
Fighting Style (11th Level): Choose either the Archer or Two-Blade ranger fighting style. You gain the benefits of that style, including the associated bonus feat.
Prime Shot (11th Level): You gain the Prime Shot class feature. If you already have the Prime Shot class feature, you do not gain its benefits twice.
Acolyte’s Quarry (16th Level): Your Hunter’s Quarry class feature lasts three rounds instead of just one.

Rogue
First Strike (11th Level): You gain the First Strike class feature.
Rogue Weapon Talent (11th Level): You gain the Rogue Weapon Talent class feature.
Tactics (11th Level): Select either Artful Dodger or Brutal Scoundrel. You gain the additional benefit of having that class feature when using powers, but you gain no other benefit.
Acolyte’s Sneak Attack (16th Level): You can use Sneak Attack twice per encounter.

Warlock
Acolyte’s Curse (11th Level): You gain usage of the Warlock’s curse class feature. However, although you may curse as many enemies as you wish (a minor action each time), you may gain the bonus damage only once per encounter.
Acolyte’s Boon (11th Level): You gain the pact boon associated with the pact you selected. This boon activates when an enemy under the effect of your curse drops to 0 hit points or fewer.
Prime Shot (11th Level): You gain the Prime Shot class feature. If you already have the Prime Shot class feature, you do not gain its benefits twice.
Adept’s Curse (16th Level): You may gain the bonus Warlock’s Curse damage against a cursed enemy three times per encounter.

Warlord
Commander (11th Level): You gain the Commanding Presence class feature.
Combat Leader (11th Level): You gain the Combat Leader class feature, but grant only a +1 bonus.
Inspiring Word (16th Level): You can use the Inspiring Word power once per encounter, instead of once per day.

Wizard
Spellbook (11th Level): You gain the Spellbook class feature. For each daily and utility wizard power you currently know, you retroactively learn a second power of that level (though you may still only prepare one spell for each level slot, as normal).
Cantrips (11th Level): You may use wizard cantrips as at-will powers.
Implement Mastery (16th Level): You gain the Implement Mastery class feature. Note that the benefits of Orb of Imposition and Wand of Accuracy apply only to wizard powers and effects generated from wizard powers.

darkzucchini
2008-07-04, 04:51 PM
To go for something grittier you could perhaps reduce initial hit points (perhaps half of con or even just con modifier). Or perhaps you could change critical hits so that they both maximize and double the weapon's damage. Both of those methods would result in battles with more tension and death.

cnsvnc: If you want to start up a thread for creating a grittier system I would be happy to contribute, I am not happy with the utter lack of grit in this new system.

Erk
2008-07-04, 05:16 PM
If you're looking for grit or low magic, you're looking at the wrong place. DnD was never exactly gritty and what existed of grit in previous incarnations is completely drained in 4E. Low magic is doable, but requires extensive homebrewing which amount to a whole new homebrew system anyway.Sorry, I wasn't quite clear on that. I don't want Gritty, or I'd be playing a different system. I just want "gritty", something my moderately softcore players will like. This "I am the Hero of Light and Dark" crud doesn't interest any of us. 2e had that stuff right on the mark, which is why I used it for so long.


You missed two VERY important bits of needafix:
1) Dragobort
2) EmolingI just considered those too obvious to mention :smallwink:


You sound like a die hard homebrewer. You got the attitude right, seems you just need extra practice in amputating mechanics off of systems and grafting the still bleeding crunch onto other systems (assuming you have time for such stuff).I don't need any more practice with that, I could use less. I've got too many unused homebrewed game systems sitting around. I just need more information about 4e. You can see a few of my 3e homebrews around the forum, although I don't believe I ever posted anything big.


Tangent: There seems to be an awful lot of homebrewers intent on gritty and low magic games (guilty as charged). Seems more than half "new system" or "list of houserules" threads are by folks aiming for "grit" and "semi realism" over "power overwhelming" and "cool incarnate". If I didn't know better, I'd say there's potential to create such a system from scratch in the gitp boards.I'd be down with that! Scratch is a bit extreme though, mostly because of the reeducation requirement. I'd like to see something like that that was geared to be loosely compatible with something else, allowing splatbooks to be integrated. That's why I tend to adapt existing d&d editions rather than start from nothing.

Goober: thanks for the play notes, a lot of that stuff is gonna come in very handy.

Pronounceable
2008-07-05, 01:35 AM
Why should roleplaying have rules like combat does in D&D?


Because some people are too dumb to realize that something can be done without having written rules for it.


cnsvnc: If you want to start up a thread for creating a grittier system I would be happy to contribute, I am not happy with the utter lack of grit in this new system.

Alas, such attempts are doomed. First there's gotta be a ringleader willing to do most of the job. Saying "Let's do it!" and waiting for others to do it will achieve nothing. And whatever the ringleader puts out must be good enough to inspire people. Even then you can get a handful of people contributing at most, and if you don't get it done quickly real life takes over and contributors (and maybe even ringleader) fall off.

So nope, there's no hope of a unified system for us gritsuckers.

That was headology. Now one of you is supposed to feel "That's not true!" and become a ringleader for a "Let's do it!" thread. Which will result in the creation of a gritty, low magic system that all we gritsuckers have always dreamed of.

Unless I was right...

Erk
2008-07-05, 06:23 PM
Because some people are too dumb to realize that something can be done without having written rules for it.
One doesn't need rules for roleplaying, but different folks seem to have very different ideas what constitutes a roleplay-only system. Say you have a bunch of PCs trying to cross an river. For whatever reason they can't swim (I can think of dozens of reasons), but they could design a boat or a bridge of some kind. Following argument is spoilered because of it not having bearing on this topic:In 4e, you have to handwave this. "Roll a 20-sider, add your int. That's your boat quality, I guess. Oh, and wasn't your character's father a carpenter? Maybe we should give you another +1? hmm". In 3e, and nearly every other RPG i have played, characters may very well have ranks in carpentry, rope use, survival, or other skills related to boat building. Their character's background directly affects their performance in a clearly mechanical, not RP, situation.

Building a boat can be a lot of fun with characters trying to figure out ways to apply their own set of skills to improving the project. Or it can be entirely RP with no mechanics, which I'm sure could be plenty fun, but does not fit the kind of game I play.

Boatbuilding is a pretty adventury example, but I've had or been part of parties that wanted to
-prepare a feast for a king
-catch the biggest fish in a village pond
-tailor their own wicked outfits
and a lot more. All these events I can think of were great fun, and I am glad that we didn't have to rely on handwaving our skills to do them. Failed rolls led players to work out extremely baroque and hilarious ways to get rerolls or improvements to the food, and in all three examples I gave we spent several hours manipulating rules to have an excellent playtime.

Without a basis for characters improving/being good at these sort of things, and without a mechanic for failure besides random arbitration, I can't see us getting into those situations in the first place. Would we have wanted to tailor everyone a wicked outfit if the rogue hadn't invested two ranks in Profession:Tailor? Who knows. But if he hadn't, we'd have missed out on a great play session. And if he had, but there was no mechanic for it, I can't see how his initial failed roll that ruined all the silk could have happened, leading us to go hunting for just the right cloth.

But thanks for just backhandedly calling me "dumb". I really appreciate the benefit of the doubt.
Anyway, I don't want to get further dredged into whether or not there needs to be rules for those kind of skills. If you're not interested in having them, don't have them. They're not there by default so it's not as if folks designing rules for them are forcing you to introduce them to your campaign.


Here are my thoughts so far on new skills. Since this thread is brainstorm, feel free to input.

I do agree that there shouldn't be too much feeling that taking profession skills draws away from "practical" skills that already exist. It was rare in any but my campaigns for folks to take these skills; in my campaigns I gave everyone a couple bonus "background" skillpoints if they had a non-adventurer background.

In a similar vein, why not allow players to determine if they are from a purely adventurer or a civilian background, and grant one or two additional class skills as a function of that? Levelling up those skills would still be an issue but I think it's a start. "lifer" adventurers could also get a bonus class skill, I'm thinking Rope Use.

The other missing skills would mostly fall under Craft and Profession, and I don't see why they couldn't be sorted essentially like before.

Does this idea seem fundamentally flawed to anyone? Anyone who wants these skills in their game, I mean.