|
Something I've been ruminating on in a 4E context is combat math on the player side. Monster math is pretty well laid out thanks to MM3 on a business card but in the context of designing a 4E clone or 4E inspired game, it's something to note that unlike other RPGs where you can have "a combat guy" and then other characters kind of along for the fight, every character in a 4E party is "a combat guy" just in their own way, and numerically every 4E character's to-hit math should be roughly in line (assuming the GM is giving out free expertise/using inherent bonuses which, y'know, they should). That is to say every weapon user should be rolling roughly the same to-hit against AC or whatever and every implement user should be rolling around the same to-hit against NADs. So I guess the question I have, thinking about all this, is that if you're trying to make a 4E clone of some sort, is there any reason to not simply make base to-hit math universal for all characters?
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 20:26 |
|
|
wallawallawingwang posted: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. What I mean is that if you have, say, a Ranger, a Bard, a Fighter, and an Avenger (let's say starting out in early heroic tier) in a 4E party and all of them have an 18 in their primary combat stat, plus all of them have an expertise feat or the equivalent thereof, and let's say they're all using a +3 proficiency weapon because to-hit value is so important, then all of their to-hit values should essentially be within 1 of each other. That is to say that for all the math that an individual player (or character building program) might do to derive a 4E character's attack value that when you get right down to it there doesn't really seem to be a whole lot of point to actually going through all of that instead of just saying "every character attacks at +X" and leaving it at that. Part of this is "death to ability scores" I guess since tying combat values to ability score values is sort of dumb for reasons that Torchlighter kind of touched on. Part of this is noting that unlike in other RPGs, 4E fully expects everybody in an adventuring party to be participating in a fight equally...it's not "the Fighter fights, the Wizard actually ends the encounter, the Bard hides behind a rock and maybe plays a song," everybody is participating on an equal level, and as a result 4E works to give everybody roughly equal chances to hit in combat. 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? (The glory of bigger numbers is also kind of an issue that 4E runs into where yeah sure, numbers get bigger as you go up in level but the general range of values between player numbers and monster numbers stay roughly equivalent so it feels pretty much like a treadmill. I guess if you've got a hankering to go splat some enemies 5 levels lower than you it might matter but 4E is at its most enjoyable when you're fighting enemies at levels roughly equivalent or higher than your party level, so I think you could flatten that number creep and not do much to adversely affect the actual play experience.) 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.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Rexides posted: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. Well 4E sort of approaches option B in a roundabout way by having a variety of powers and abilities with different effects and targeting different defenses. For example, if I'm playing a Monk then some of my attacks target Reflex and some target Fortitude and so if I'm attacking an enemy I may have to decide whether I want to try and go for the surer thing and target the lower defense or if I'd rather have the effect/ability of this technique over here and risk a slightly lower chance of landing the attack. I think there's some interesting design space to be considered in having monsters with special reactions to attacks that land on different defenses though, that's a pretty cool idea.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:And now for a Trifold Fighter who can be anywhere from simpler than a Slayer to the full range of a well built Weaponmaster. And yes, CAGI is in there in all but name (I made it a daily because it has much more of a daily feel to me) and so is the Countercharge as an encounter power. And yes, the fighter is meant to have a ridiculous level of Presence. I've left a couple comments on the document itself and hopefully I didn't break poo poo in the process, but I think it might be more convenient if I leave more extensive feedback this way. First of all this looks pretty rad and I think you should keep going with this. In terms of feedback, my immediate question I guess is whether there's really much of a benefit to having both a Mark and a Defender Aura as Approaches as they really both fulfill similar functions and provide similar benefits with only a slight difference in functionality. I'm a fan of 4E's Fighter but I have to admit that if I were trying to do a quicker, simpler, sleeker 4E that I might be tempted to just give the Fighter the Defender's Aura which is honestly a very functional bit of design that renders a Fighter quite sticky. Next, is there anything that differentiates the weapon choice besides damage die type? Because as it stands I'm not entirely sure what the point of choosing, say, unarmed combat is over a one handed weapon when one does d6 damage and the other does d10 with no other apparent difference. Maybe this is something you plan to address further on in the game, I'm not sure. Is there a reason that choosing the Action Point Upgrade locks you into choosing it for each successive Upgrade? And why does Old One-Two look like you can take it multiple times? I may be misinterpreting something, but there doesn't seem to be any reason to take it more than once.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
You can always keep "Marked" as a general status effect similar to slowed or dazed if you want, it can have applications outside of the Fighter. I didn't realize that going unarmed would let you grapple two enemies at once. I guess that gives it a bit of circumstantial utility but I dunno if that makes it worth taking a d6 for damage as opposed to a d10 for going sword-and-fist. Maybe roll unarmed into "improvised and thrown" at a d8?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:I doubt that two fisted fighters are worth it - but yes, d8 would probably be better. I also want to tweak it somehow so you can smash improvised weapons for extra damage - but I think that should be in the core improvised weapon rules. As for Marked having applications outside the fighter, I believe even Monster Vault uses it. Although character creation is very different it's intended to be compatible at the table (barring skill tweaks). Lots of monsters use Marks but even in core 4E various characters outside of Defenders have powers/exploits/whatever that let them mark enemies. In a lot of cases it isn't really worth it since few of them have the ability to enforce marks in a threatening manner but that's something you could address either by making "Marked" a more versatile status effect or simply giving it to classes that can make good use of it. For improvised weapons you could always crib from 4E Dark Sun's weapon breakage rules which were pretty fun...if you roll a 1 with an improvised weapon you can either accept the automatic miss or you can choose to reroll but if you roll 5 or less on the second roll then the weapon breaks. You can adjust the threshold of the second roll to taste. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Obviously the simplest and most expedient method of differentiating damage between classes is the Dungeon World approach where damage is solely a function of class rather than weapon, where the Fighter does d10 damage whether he's using a greatsword or a teacup and the Wizard only does d4 no matter what unless he's using magic to cheat his way into something bigger. That said, I think there's some value to be had in a slightly higher crunch game in being able to choose between, say, a high-damage Fighter that specializes in beating face or a Fighter who gives up a bit of raw damage in exchange for, say, greater control abilities on the weapon proficiency end of things. Not to a huge range, but the choice between a d10 and a d12 (for example) is really just a difference of 1 point of damage on average. Neonchameleon's Fighter already makes that choice through power selection though so there may not be as much value in having an extra layer of that when it comes to choosing weapons. At that point you could simply stick with class-based damage and give different weapon types/styles variable bonuses beyond that (unarmed gives you a bonus to grappling and pinning, improvised lets you smash up your weapons for extra punch, sword-and-shield gives you a defense bonus, polearms give you reach, two-handers have a built-in cleave or something, etc.).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
Erebus looks really awesome and I hope you and Captain Hats continue to work on it outside of this contest.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 20:26 |
|
|
neonchameleon posted:Ranger's on my to do list, certainly. What you need is a Monk. A good one. 4E's about the only good example of a D&D Monk there is. The "full discipline" system might be too complex for what you're doing but I think the biggest success of the 4E Monk was finally making good on the promise of "a highly mobile skirmisher" by giving Monks lots of tactically useful movement options while also giving them lots of decent multi-target attacks and reasonably decent damage.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2014 08:37
|
|