Homebrewing a 6e based on 5e and 4e

[noob]

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]

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]

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]

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

[OACSNY97]

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]

Spoiler: Reply to OACSNY97

Show

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]

Spoiler: Reply to OACSNY97's second post

Show

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]

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]

Spoiler: Reply to OACSNY97's second post

Show

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]

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]

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:

Spoiler: Warrior vs War Cleric

Show

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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).

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.

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).

[OACSNY97]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.