wallawallawingwang posted:

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.

Rexides posted:

We had a big argument in one of the older D&D Next threads about the validity of the striker role. Since "Make HP go down" is the central mechanic of combat, some of us felt that all members of the party should be able to contribute to it equally. I think that Misandu is on to something here, as all his classes have certain conditions where they do big damage, and the combat mini-game is about making those conditions happen.

You could also have a "striker" role that does the same damage as the rest, but excels at slipping past soldiers and brutes to deliver that damage to enemy controllers, however if you do that you end up with a role that is only relevant when that particular configuration of enemies is present, which is not good.

Asymmetrikon posted:

Roll under stats in the D&D standard range is elegant, but unless you change the way you do other checks, it'll feel a little odd to mix roll-under with roll-add-over.

Torchlighter posted:

I wanted to ask some opinions of the thread on my writeup about ability scores.


Do I have most of the issues surrounding ability cores? Are there any more? Do you Agree/Disagree with the claim that getting rid of ability scores would require a redesign of the eight areas?

Kai Tave posted:

wallawallawingwang posted:

Is anyone else oscillating between doing a modest rules cleanup and just using 4e as a base for something totally different?

Kai Tave posted:

On the subject of weapon and damage...something you could consider, I don't know how you're planning on handling weapons, is giving different classes different values of damage with various weapon types instead of saying "all two-handed weapons do X." So for example, Fighters do d12 with two-handers but maybe Paladins only do a d10, Fighters do d8 with unarmed damage but Monks do d10 or d12, etc.

Error 404 posted:

This.

*Posts Dungeon World*

Serious Edit:


I am down, hit me up via PM or something, I'm definitely in kind of a setting/fluff mode lately, and not doing mechanics from scratch is appealing.

wallawallawingwang posted:

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

wallawallawingwang posted:

Does anyone know offhand if CA stacks with the -5 to defenses from unconscious?

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?

Why is Blinded equal to Removed from Play? I'd stick it alongside Restrained.

Flanked should be rated somewhere on here.

wallawallawingwang posted:

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.

P.d0t posted:

I'll break this down.

wallawallawingwang posted:

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.

TheSpookyDanger posted:

I was hoping to have something along the lines of a 4E lite, but the power had been out and will likely stay out until until the thirtieth.

dog kisser posted:

Steakpunk is my favorite entry so far.

Including mine!

Frankosity posted:

E: Oh my god, SteakPunk

dog kisser posted:

edit: Also Steakpunk is goddamn excellent, for the record.

Error 404 posted:

Also, P.d0t shouldn't sell themselves short, if you go back and look at the original system docs for the mechanics, this thing is 1,000,000,000% a team effort, this wasn't just "slap a setting on it and call it good" by any stretch.

Also, even though I basically ripped off all the *World style moves with only the barest of efforts to try and hide it, they work pretty drat well as a Frankenstein monster-ish bolted on wholesale replacement abomination of D&D's skill system.

neonchameleon posted:

friends have requested Moar Classes (the Vessel (Invoker/Caster Cleric) and the Bard) - and some of those friends are going to be playtesting 4th Trifold. It also needs some sort of basic intro-doc.

neonchameleon posted:

Given a Ranger appeals to you, what do you want to see it do?

neonchameleon posted:

Your wish is my command. I seem to have killed both Green Arrow and the Executioner Assassin and taken most of their stuff. But I'd really like feedback on this one; no one in any of my groups really plays archery rangers and I try to design with players in mind (my Spirit Warrior, for example, is not pitched so much to 4e players as to the type of players who want to play a Barbarian or Garou and just bring the smashy).

Covok posted:

we have completed all our playtests

Covok posted:

Steakpunk
-Reserves allowing for extra turns lead to some inbalance. When we ran a combat with this rule – we did another without it –, the PCs were able to win the battle in a single turn. Without this, the combat ran better.[/b]
-In addition to the above, Razor Wind was a bit powerful. In the same vein, [u]the playtesters felt their characters were underpowered.

Mr. Prokosch posted:

We just removed the insane dependent clause that let us use reserves for extra turns. Getting another turn breaks the action economy, itʻs not the same as just healing or the damage boosts or the status effects, although being able to choose from all those options makes them an extremely good resource, which makes the feat that gives you more very appealing.

Mr. Prokosch posted:

After some time trying to figure it out, I ended up settling on "it kind of balances out" and went with forceful for the better reserves feat. It took me a very long time to call it a wash though, and if it is a wash, then why is it a choice to begin with?

This was a big problem throughout. Every mechanic seemed to lead you through a series of confusing choices that ended up not really mattering in the end.

Mr. Prokosch posted:

Then buff the classes a lot so that the controller is dominating the battlefield and crippling enemies, the striker is an angel of death, the defender is a wall of meat that punishes enemies for attacking allies, attacking him, and for existing, and the leader is in control, giving vital boosts exactly where they're needed. If you need to also buff the poo poo out of enemies to make that work, then that's great. So long as everyone feels like they are what they want to play, instead of being some watered down, slightly better at their thing but still mostly the same as everyone else, generic meat man.