|
Bongo Bill posted:Choose a number of eligible enemies to "threaten" each turn. (Powers and class features determine eligibility.) Roll attacks against each of them on your turn, but don't announce the results. Instead, write them down and put the paper face-down. On the threatened enemies' turn, if they do the thing that would provoke the attack, turn it right-side up and see if it hits and if so how much damage is taken. Something I ask myself when writing a rule is: What goal am I trying to accomplish with this rule? I can sort of intuit the threatening portion of the rule, but I'm not sure what pre-rolling accomplishes. If you want to have a set of random but predetermined outcomes that can be fairly hidden, using a hand of playing cards seems like it'd be much faster. I'm going to throw my hat into the ring for this contest too. I'll go ahead and post a set of design goals when I get them polished up a bit.
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 15:53 |
|
|
The Goals: No one should have to wonder what their current bonus is. Nearly any common fantasy character type should be buildable, without worry of traps. Deal with all the fiddly bonuses. Have character creation that does not require computer assistance. Improve on what worked in 4e: math that just works, simple for DM to prep encounters, and easy to improvise. The Specifics: Character Creation and Powers -Fewer, but broader classes. The game doesn’t need 7 martial strikers. -Players will pick options from a series of menus of balanced options. -Re-jigger ability scores, Str/Con, Dex/Int, Wis/Chr, are inconsistent, weird, imbalanced and need to go. I don’t know if that means getting rid of all ability scores, or changing the current ones. -Standardize and combine Themes and Backgrounds. -Character class should provide a broad base of competence and Theme / Paragon Path / Epic Destiny provide specialization. -Powers all improve by tier. No need to replace powers. -Either make better use of tags/keywords or drop them. Combat and Action Scenes -Switch to modified popcorn style initiative. -Streamline effect durations. -Unify summons/hirelings/companions. -Expand the losing/wining conditions for encounters so that “everyone dies” isn’t the default anymore. -General simplification and clarification. Exploration and Interaction -Silo combat and non-combat character choices so they don’t interfere with each other. -Unify utility powers, rituals, martial practices, and single use items. -Expand and deepen the skill list. -Equalize out-of-combat utility across classes. -Add degrees of success to skill checks. General -Replace economic and treasure system. -Better Leveling and XP system. Pie in the Sky Ideas: Different play styles achievable with simple and small rules tweaks. Organization and domain management rules. It seems like the first step is deciding how ability scores work and then building character classes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Aggro chat: Keeping track of specific per-player per-monster damage number relationships seems like a lot of extra work. I might simplify it into each time a PC does damage greater than X, with X equaling some fraction of the monsters HP, that PC gets an aggro token. If you wanted you could expand that out to things like PCs that use healing wordalikes, or use a daily attack, get an aggro token too. Monster's then pick targets based on whatever combo of availability and aggro tokens you like. Second Wind might also reduce or reset your aggro token count. The closest I've come to a player math spine are the calculations for companion characters in the DMG2. It might actually be easier to start with the monster stats, and fill in the PC stats from there. If you know what monster HP and defenses are at a given level, you just need to decide how accurate the PC are and how many hits you want it to take to bring a monster down. http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?1074-4-Elements-at-the-Core-of-4e#.U7tNvfldXmd this goes into some basic detail about the very very core 4e math. wallawallawingwang fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Jul 8, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
Rexides, I really like that idea. Are monsters also subject to risk as well? Since all those tiny fiddly bits apply to PC actions as well. If you do, it seems like it would be easier to port over 4e's roles. How important are the 4 roles to people? As a player I really like having a clear idea what I'm supposed to be doing during a fight. I've tweaked them and clarified them a little bit for my own purposes. In my entry, Defenders and Strikers are both about the Hit Point economy. Defenders shunt damage around to where it will hurt the least (usually themselves), and strikers shunt damage to where the Monsters are most vulnerable. Controllers and Leaders are both about the action economy. Controllers are primarily about making monster turns as inefficient as possible and Leaders are about making the PC's turns as efficient as possible. Put another way: Defenders and Strikers try to make the PC to monster HP exchange rate as favorable as possible, and Controllers and Leaders try to make the PC to monster action exchange rate as favorable as possible.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Captain Hats posted:Feel free to savage my terrible ideas and tell me why they suck. For a 4e-Com game, I'd assume that dailies and encounters (really everything would be per mission or at-will) would mostly be based on your equipment load out, with role and class modifying how you use equipment. Like a sniper gets extra range when using a rifle, but an assault gets a wicked bayonet charge when using the same rifle. Anyone can toss a smoke grenade, but strikers can see through the smoke better and deal extra damage to enemies in the smoke, but leaders can use the grenade to provide cover for their allies so they can safely shift around. I'm certainly not a great and renowned designer, but I was dicking around with a similar idea a bit ago so maybe some of the ideas I was messing with might spark something. -I changed the assumed size of squares from 5 feet to 10 feet, so gun ranges were a bit longer in fictional terms but could work with a 20/40 square upper range limit found in the base game. It also lets a vehicle going 40 MPH have a speed of 36 squares (really high but still something you can show on a large battlemat) instead of 72 squares (why bother tracking distance at that point). -To reinforce the importance of cover, I changed the standard defense from AC to Cover. There were 3 types of cover: Open: basically no cover, Normal: rubble, rocks, trees and furniture to hide behind, Heavy: Behind a sandbag barricade. The assumption being that squares were normal cover unless otherwise noted. Certain classes would get bonuses depending on the degree of cover they had. Scouts for example would get extra movement and a small bonus to cover when they were out in the open. -Armor basically worked by giving you a save to negate a hit you took. Better armor gave you bonuses to the roll, and let you use the armor more often. Role Chat: I agree that if any of the roles had to go, it'd be striker. When the rest of the group is hitting and buffing allies to hit better, hitting and debuffing enemies to hit worse, and hitting while ensuring the toughest attacks go to the toughest target Hitting, but harder, seems kind of lazy. The tweak of hitting as hard as anyone else but hitting where it hurts most, gives you the same effect of defeating the monsters faster but also gives the striker a specific goal that won't overshadow anyone else. Mobility and range are good starts, but like it was mentioned before aren't enough. Spit balling some ideas here. -Overkill: When this striker takes an enemy to below 0 HP the excess cleaves into another nearby enemy. This lets them not have to worry about wasting an encounter or a daily on a weakened monster, provided another enemy is near they can't waste damage. It also gives you neat little tactical situations where you are better off attacking the bosses minions instead of the boss. Their effective average damage goes up, without having to increase their maximum or minimum. -Harrier: Even when their attacks don't work well a cavalcade of smaller attacks means they still do a decent amount of damage on a miss. When their attacks do hit, they carry debuffs that increase the odds of players hitting/hurting their target. Since their attack action is never wasted they have incentives to go after high defense/buffed targets. When they get lucky and hurt them it gives the other players a chance to dogpile them. -Throat Slitter: Anytime they successfully attack a standard bloodied enemy, they finish them off. This might be too similar to the overkill guy, but it lets the rest of the players focus fire for a round or two, and then quickly move on. It also makes cleanup a snap. These are all pretty rough. I might use them in my entry, but feel free to use/adapt/mock anything here.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
I think it depends on what you mean by making the math universal. I don't see much point in the disparity between AC and the NADS, but I suspect that is rooted in the disparity between how the system treats implements and weapons. But there is some value to having enemies that are more or less vulnerable to certain kinds of attacks, like huge bruisers with high AC and fort, but low will and reflex. I also think there is something to be said for highly accurate being a cool shtick, so long as highly accurate means in certain, but by no means universal, circumstances you get to do something cool and unique to increase your odds of doing damage. The Avenger's oath is a lot cooler than Fighters getting to numberwang on a 7 instead of an 8.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
A few years back I did some reverse engineering on the 4e weapons. This is what I came up with: Weapons are built with points. A simple 1 hander is built with 7-9 points. A simple 2 hander is built with 9-11 points. A military 1 hander is built with 10-11 points. A military 2 hander is built with 13-14 points. A superior 1 hander is built with 11-13 points. A superior 2 hander is built with 15-16 points. Each half point of average damage is worth 1 point, including average damage that comes from the brutal property. (2d4 and 1d8 Brutal 1 both cost 10 for example) A +3 proficiency mod is worth 2 points. The High Crit feature is worth 1 point. Off hand is worth 2 points. Thrown is worth 2 points. The range seems.. totally arbitrary and made up. Reach is worth 3 points. Versatile looks like it is free. Belonging to more than one weapon group is free. Ranged weapons require a LOT more speculation since there are fewer examples to work with. Ranged weapons get, for free, load minor and a range of 10/20, 15/30, 20/40 depending on simple, military or superior. Adding 5/10 to a ranged weapons range is worth 1 point. Free reloads costs 2 points. The reload of a repeating crossbow costs 1 point. No real idea what small is worth, maybe 2 points? Is anyone else oscillating between doing a modest rules cleanup and just using 4e as a base for something totally different?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
I'm not sure if its just my deep seeded need to procrastinate, but distilling the essence of 4e before I move on is a good idea. Especially since I've mostly been thinking about what doesn't work or is missing in the game, rather than what does work or is present. Next has made it a dirty word, but 4e does have a feel in addition to its core rules. Tummyfeels: -There aren't fights, there are battles, especially after the mm3 patch. Big set pieces with unique terrain and unusual circumstances seem to be the most satisfying way to build combat encounters. Compared to other editions, it's difficult to trivialize most fights, nova-debuffing a solo being a notable exception. However, a well made character can still get into a lot of trouble or even die if they are poorly played or have a run of bad luck. -It's a D20 game and that means throwing fistfuls of dice. -There is a sense that characters grow in competence and power. When my wizard got the ability to open up long range portals more or less at will, it really gave me that growth in power tummyfeel. Sometimes the math undercuts this though, and you go from need to make 4 20 HP hits to needing to make 4 80 HP hits. -4e nicely avoids the shitfarmer phase. Except for odd-ball builds that needed a specific set of feats and equipment to work, characters felt like they worked right from level 1. Actual rules: -Discrete highly defined, rules written with an eye for clarity and ease of play at the table. -Characters take their entire turn at once, and the sub-actions within each turn is governed by a strict action economy. Contrast that with the phases in Warhammer, or Action Points in the first X-Com, or even 3rd eds much looser action economy. -At least 3 rolls before PCs risk death. Save or die has been replaced with a successful attack followed by two failed saves. Very few monsters do enough damage to risk one shot-ing an equal level PC, even on a crit. -Characters seem to hit more or less on 8 +- 2. -Degree of success in combat is distributed across a couple of different areas. The attack roll provides miss/hit/crit, the power helps determine what those 3 conditions mean, but the damage roll is probably the key component of combat degree of success. -Character creation works rather like magic: the gathering deck building, in that you fill limited slots with chunks of ability, with an eye for both the chunk's inherent power and its ability to synergize with your other chunks. There are limits and buffers on both the slots and the numbers that keep this from being completely terribly breakable. -PC's being most effective when they work together in combat.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Yeah, go for it. I figure if I post something here in the thread it is for public use. When I get a draft of my entry written up I'll just post a link to it. I'm least sure about ranged weapons with this system, but these should work well for laser-katanas and the like. Here are some modernish weapons from an unfinished 4e modern conversion I was working on. The clip property meant that if you rolled that number of lower on an attack, you couldn't use another attack power with that weapon until you spent a move action to reload the gun. I think clip 2 was the free default, but clip 4 gave you an extra point to play around with. Less than lethal just meant that if your brought something to 0, you had to KO it. I think I also was going to house rule Versatile to deal 1 extra damage per [W]. weapon name | prof | [w] | range | group | properties simple one handed melee baseball bat | +2 | 1d8 | mace | versatile pepper spray| +3 | 1d4 |less than lethal | reach, offhand military one handed melee tonfa | +2 | 1d8 | mace and unarmed | off hand superior one handed melee power drill | +2 | 1d8 | power tool | brutal 2, high crit superior two handed melee chainsaw | +2 | 1d12 | power tool | brutal 2, high crit simple one handed ranged sawed off shotgun | +3 | 1d8 | 5/10 | shotgun | load minor light revolver | +2 | 1d6 | 10/20 | pistol | clip 4, off hand heavy revolver | +2 | 1d8 | 10/20 | pistol | clip 4, versatile taser | +2 | 1d6 | 3/6 | less than lethal | simple two handed ranged pump shotgun | +3 | 1d8 | 10/20 | shotgun | clip 2 double barred shotgun | +3 | 1d10 | 10/20 | shotgun | load minor hunting rifle | +2 | 1d10 | 15/30 | rifle | clip 2 carbine | +2 | 1d8 | 10/20 | rifle | clip 2, small military one handed ranged light semi-auto pistol | +2 | 1d8 | 10/20 | pistol | clip 2, off hand heavy semi-auto pistol | +2 | 1d10 | 15/30 | pistol | clip 2 light SMG | +2 | 1d8 | 10/20 | auto | clip 4, brutal 1 full auto pistol | +3 | 1d6 | 10/20 | pistol, auto | clip 4, versatile military two handed ranged SMG heavy | +2 | 1d8 | 15/30 | auto | clip 4, small, brutal 1 sniper rifle | +2 | 1d10 | 30/60 | rifle | load minor combat shotgun | +3 | 1d8 | 10/20 | shotgun | clip 2, high crit assault rifle |+3 | 1d10 | 20/40 | rifle | clip 2 SAW | +2 | 1d12 | 10/20 | auto | clip 4 superior two handed ranged minigun | +2 | 2d6 | 20/40 | auto | clip 2 anti-material rifle | +2 | 1d12 | 30/60 | rifle | clip 2
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
Black Tuesday, October 29, 1929, seven stellar objects collide with the United States. Panic grips the world as the greatest economy on the planet grinds to a halt. Now, after two years, dark rumors plague the work camps and rail yards. The collision awakened something dark in the forgotten corners and deep places of the Earth. As one of millions of displaced workers, you must fight to survive crushing poverty, a broken society, and the sinister machinations of the awakened. It is S.T.A.L.K.E.R. meets Weird Tales in a radioactive dust bowl. My basic and proposed rule changes can be found here.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
I was looking at conditions to try to create a rough tier rating for them, and to see if there are any gaps that need filling. It made me realize there are a few common effects that could be formalized into a condition, like being unable threaten spaces and/or being unable to make OAs. It also seems like there are very few conditions that flat out add an attack roll penalty (just Blinded I think), but a lot of conditions inflict CA which works as a sort of a nested defense penalty. Seeing Dying, Unconscious, Helpless and Surprised separate from their normal contexts makes me wonder if you could set them to be consequences for attacks independent of the circumstances you normally encounter them in. For instance, Finger of Death could inflict a special Dying (save ends) effect instead of doing HP damage. How do these ratings look? Am I missing anything obvious? Tier 6: Dominated, Dying, Unconscious Tier 5: Surprised, Stunned, Helpless Tier 4: Petrified, Dazed, Blinded, Removed from Play Tier 3: Restrained, Weakened, Prone Tier 2: Immobilized Tier 1: Slowed, Marked (regular, not marked w/defender punishment), grabbed Tier 0: Deafened Does anyone know offhand if CA stacks with the -5 to defenses from unconscious? Anyone have any burning condition chat? Is it worth setting up a parallel set of helpful conditions, like Hasted, or Inspired?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
Iunnrais posted:Why is Surprised and Stunned rated as a higher tier than Petrified, Dazed, Blinded, Removed from Play? Helpless, yes, I can see that being worse than Petrified etc, but Surprised and Stunned? Yeah, like P.dot said, even though Petrified makes you lose a round you get a DR consolation prize. The same with Removed from play. Although its no LoE is double edged. It really sucks if you've got some nasty ongoing damage you'd like some help with, but at least no one else can attack you in the meantime. Blinded is a little tricky. I can see a good case for moving it down a tier. Petrified and removed from play are both probably a little worse than dazed or blinded. Blinded on the other hand seems a little worse than restrained, the attack penalty is greater, you can't take OAs, can't flank, and you can't teleport out of it. Every once in while you also come across a DM who forces you to guess which square monsters are in when you are blinded, though I'm pretty sure that is not RAW. The only mitigating factor for blinded is that you get to skip the -5 to attacks if you have access to area attacks. So it's in an awkward place of not quite being as powerful as removed from play, but probably being more powerful than restrained. Flanked seems like a 2. You can usually shift out of it (though it's usually not too hard for them to shift back into flanking you), and technically it only makes you grant CA. But being flanked by a pair of shifty kobold rogues is a lot scarier than 'granting CA' would indicate. So it seems like immobilized. Immobilized is not too terrible in and of itself, but if you get immobilized in a square of damaging terrain the situation gets grim quickly.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Bold = false Huh. I've never heard that before, but I only have the original PHB and the website compendium. What reference are you using? On the website under blinded it says "The creature can’t see, which means its targets have total concealment against it." Looking up concealment: "Unless otherwise noted, area powers and close powers are not affected by concealment. Such powers often produce explosions or great weapon swings that don’t depend on vision." For total concealment it specifies: "An attacker takes a -5 penalty to melee and ranged attack rolls against a target that has total concealment. The attacker can’t see the target: It is invisible, in a totally obscured square, or in a heavily obscured square and not adjacent to the attacker." Under invisible it lists "doesn't provoke" as one of the benefits of being invisible. Now I can see the difference between stealth-ed and invisible. You could be invisible and banging cymbals together or something. If totally concealed and invisible are two different and separable conditions, I... well, that'd have to be one of the dumbest 4e rules. Edit: Though I guess part of the utility of making a 4e-alike is to cleanup this kind of stuff, regardless of RAW or how it gets played from table to table. wallawallawingwang fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Jul 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:The Fantasy rules module Can we see the three strikes skill challenges link listed in the core document? It says I don't have permission.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
I'm still in.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 15:53 |
|
|
I didn't get as much written as I hoped this week. So it never reached a completed point for the purposes of this contest, but I wanted to share what I hammered out. Basic rules Making a character Actions
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2014 06:52
|
|