|
Bongo Bill posted:Here are some principles that are often cited as ways to build on 4e's design trajectory: I propose that anyone who doesn't do at least these things be immediately disqualified. I suck at these contests, I always drop out after the first round, but what the hell, I am going to try again. In addition to the above, my Not4E will try to do the following:
There are other ideas I have as well, but if I can't do the above I see no reason in even trying.
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 10:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 07:54 |
|
|
As far as I am concerned, any game that is tactical enough, plays on a board representing the physical battleground, is class-based and has solid math and action economy should be considered a spiritual successor to 4E. Or I am just saying this because my entry will try to hit just those particular notes from 4E.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2014 13:58
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Isn't the fighter's ability to immediately smack a marked creature who doesn't attack them kind of key to their usefulness? It's certainly one of the most rewarding things to be able to say "Not in my house!" I plan to have a mechanic called "lockdown", where during his turn the fighter lays down tokens in the area around him (not necessarily adjacent) that cause damage to monsters if they are ignored. It might not have the "feel" of delivering a solid attack with a d20, but it should get the job done.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
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. Does this refer to my rule? Cause it's nothing like that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:No, the rule I came up with in that same post was the one that was awful and needed cleanup. Yeah, I can't handle meta-posting. Maybe replacing the "roll and note down attacks" with drawing from a deck of cards could be a first step. I plan something similar for the Swashbuckler (rogue) that tries to emulate the shell game .
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2014 09:07
|
|
|
Anyone who is attempting an aggro mechanic for this contest should go all the way and try to make a DM-less system.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 09:04
|
|
|
Ok, here is what I currently have in mind for my system: The players take their turns in any order they want. During a player’s turn, she can take a certain number of actions (standard, move and maaaaaybe minor seems right). Actions have certain main effects (“Move” will take you somewhere else, “Murder” will kill something etc), and most of them have a side effect of generating something called Risk for the player when taken in certain situations. Risk more or less takes the place of Hit Points, a way to abstract what’s happening during a heated battle. Since Risk is more abstract than hit points, it’s easier for it to go up and down in the course of a fight. You can also think of risk as “karma”, but that’s a bit of a loaded word. Now, I mentioned that actions can generate risk as a side effect. Here are some examples:
When all the players have taken their turns, they end up with varying amounts of Risk on them, and it’s now the DM’s turn. The DM can use the Risk that the players generated to ruin their day. Here are some examples of what he could do:
So the main idea is that small fiddly actions like having a minion take an OA at you as you move past should be abstracted into Risk, and have the DM roll for significant actions that can dramatically alter the battle by using Risk. As for the players killing monsters, I am thinking of something similar in the way of “Momentum” or “Pressure”. Haven’t thought about it that much, but I don’t want it to be like Hit Points either.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
wallawallawingwang posted: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. Generally player actions are too significant (compared to, say, a minion's attack) to abstract with such a mechanic, with the exception of out-of-turn attacks (like OA), which are bad because they interrupt play and draw out the combat length. So I am going to have a similar mechanic (but not the same) to abstract these kind of things. 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. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:But because of that it seems to me that 4E goes through a lot of unnecessary steps to arrive at that point. So that's why I'm asking, since we've got a lot of people theory- and kitbashing here, if there's some point to how 4E handles this that I'm missing or if it really is largely as pointless as it seems? Between ability score increases, feats, magic items, and of course the +1/2 level bonus, PCs are expected to have +1/level to hit and defenses (before proficiency and class bonuses) Kai Tave posted:I agree that the disparity between AC and the non-AC defenses is kind of weird when you dig right down into the reasoning behind it, but I also agree that monsters having variable defense ratings in different areas gives players an additional tactical consideration when fighting them so I'd be inclined to keep it in some form or fashion. As we discussed in another thread, the problem is that variable defenses in a binary resolution system is not such a good idea. Sure, you do have more chances scoring a hit against a weak defense, but since the two different outcomes are exactly the same as attacking a strong defense (Hit/No Hit, or rolling 18 vs DC 18 has the same effect as 18 vs DC 11), it makes you question the validity of that particular rule combination on a turn-by-turn basis. For people who want to have variable defenses in their systems, I suggest the following: a) Have a more granular resolution mechanic, or b) Have different effects vs different defense strength. Personally I'll go with b because I think it's nice to reward a player for picking the weak point by providing an additional bonus to his effect. For example, a creature with weak Fort might get a penalty to movement if he was hit with a vs. Fort power, or one with a weak Will might get a penalty to damage with vs. Will powers.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 07:54 |
|
|
Dropping out. To be honest, it was never my intention to make a "better 4E", I was just trying to shoehorn some ideas I had into a grid-based combat system. If this contest somehow results 4thfinder, I will seriously consider pitching it to my group because 4E is great but oh god those loving cows.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2014 11:14
|
|