|
4e is a good RPG. Maybe not a perfect one. But it was a very well designed game, and one with (by industry standards) a huge audience. It's also a game both with a lot going for it and a lot that can be done - so retroclones can be a huge improvement. And I'm certain I'm not the only one with an ongoing retroclone (that was kicked into gear by the July contest). What does 4e offer and what does it need? Always nice to know what to keep and what to throw out. There is plenty of room for disagreement here. Advantages 4e is very well designed and transparent about what it does. Simplicity and clarity of rules. Forced movement makes for one of the best tactical and kinaesthetic experiences I've ever played. Monster creation is superb. And you can't copyright mechanics. Classes being very different in play Instruction manual level of clarity for finding things in the rulebook. The bad Feats. There were about 1500 of them last time I checked. Aaaggghhhhh!!!!!!! DDI. Not that DDI is a bad thing. But none of us can match that. H4ters. Combat takes too long. More to the point, Big Epic Combats take too long. The design and layout puts people off. It's like reading an instruction manual. Limited range of playstyles. Tight math meaning that items feel essential rather than like rewards (even in some cases if you use inherent bonusses). An only slightly modified d20 Skill/Ability system that pigeonholes characters. And that last needs an expansion. 4e character building is immensely flexible, especially with the superb balance 4e has. But all 4e characters are high tactical engagement with about the same rules weight. It's a good place to pitch. But some people don't like tactical combat and in combat Just Want To Smash Things. They were not catered to until Essentials. The pity about this is being able to make each class into a minigame is one of the strengths of a class based system. And I firmly believe that one of the reasons for the enduring popularity of D&D is because it allows the Just Smashys alongside the Combo Wizards - something 4e didn't. (Of course this doesn't mean all playstyles should be legal or desirable - we don't want Whizzards or God Wizards). Anything obvious I've missed? Send in the Clones My own 4th Trifold P. Dot and Error 404's Steakpunk neonchameleon fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Aug 3, 2014 |
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
Under the bad side of things you should probably put bad math. I think most people have a fairly good understanding of why but I'll write a little capsule explanation. Dysfunctional Numbers: Monster to-hit and defense numbers scale by their level, while PC numbers scale by half their level. The gap is filled by requiring everyone to have magic items and feat bonuses and an 18 or 20 in their primary stat, which a) doesn't help with the bloat, b) deprecates rewards (getting the boss monster's magic sword feels less like an accomplishment when it's the +1 upgrade you need for level 11), and c) punishes players for taking creative options. Fixing this requires tearing the math apart and rebuilding it from the ground up. Not the hardest of tasks in and of itself, but it does require rethinking magic items significantly. Under the good side of things, I would put down that classes are much more distinct in play. Sorcerors and wizards play very differently.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
4th Trifold 4th Trifold is a direct attempt to keep all the good bits of 4e while ditching problems. If I'm retrocloning and there are obvious improvements to be made I certainly should make them. Part of the goal is to draw out and reinforce the simplicity of 4e; putting all the rules text onto trifolds both underlines the simplicity and provides a discipline that simultaneously keeps the bloat late 4e suffered from away and means that writing an entire class is a manageable chunk. Central Contents The Core Rules and the Fantasy Module are both on trifolds - naturally. Time spent looking things up in books: Negligable. And a couple of trifolds isn't too much to learn. There have been changes made. Popcorn Initiative to make combat faster, more tactical, and more dangerous. Hit Points renamed to Stun and using Recoveries rather than Healing Surges as a name. Both of which are to better reflect their role in the game. Some simplifying and changing of monster roles (they aren't quite the same as in 4e). Hex grid as default (because square fireballs are irritating). Skill Challenges aren't a part of 4th Trifold - but they are major inspiration for GM advice and tools (and I think the GM advice is a massive improvement over any version in D&D 4e - but I would think that). Also a quick combat resolution system which turns out to work both for irrelevant guards and real surprise attacks where you are trying to kill the dragon before it wakes up. Working out what the engine did well there's a rules module that is absolutely not in any way a Mass Effect hack But the core of what's been done in 4th Trifold are the classes. They all fit onto trifolds - so there isn't the 4E 8 Page Character Sheet, and they can be filled in quite literally in a couple of minutes. Ability scores died (no room, no point). And the weapon list got cut. But there is some flex in the classes. Fighter The fighter is one of the two shining gems of D&D 4e and is where I'm closest to the highlights of the source material. It's every bit as suited to the tactical players that loved them before - but at every step of the way there are simple and effective options you can choose to end up with someone who just hits things. Hard. Until they stop moving. Warlord The Warlord is the other shining gem. And I think I've turned it up to 11 by way of a lot of inspiration from Grim World's Battlemaster (and when my copy of 13 True Ways arrives I may go back over it and see what the Commander has to offer). The main target for this class was me - one of my all time favourite characters in 4e was my Bravura Warlord. There's also an option without any sort of recovery spending - some people don't like any form of martial healing, so why lock them out? Rogue Tricksy, agile, swashbuckly. The rogue is for people who like flair and flamboyance. And although the 4e rogue is good, the 4th Trifold Rogue owes a lot to both the 13th Age rogue and the 5e Rogue. Using their swift action for extra movement (one of my favourite things designing the rogue is the Parkour finesse that allows the rogue to leap, fall, land, pull themselves up by their fingertips, and otherwise almost force flamboyant movement when using it. (Not that flamboyance is essential - there are plenty of ways to keep quiet and use the brush pass and just slipping around slightly before bringing the dagger up between the ribs). I think it gives enough for people who want to creep around and never be seen doing anything. I'm not entirely sure. The Holy Warrior "Who's going to have to play the cleric?" - words I never want to hear in a game I've designed. I can't see much conceptual gap between Melee Cleric and Paladin of the same alignment. So why not make them the same class? And if we throw in the Blackguard we can have fall and redemption mechanics that are under the control of the player. Making Paladins fall is frequently terrible. But some players like playing that sort of arc, so encourage it. The other point of this class is that they get stronger as the situation gets worse - whether because they are more surrounded or because they are bloodied or have spent recoveries. I think it's hit its target players. The Innate Mage Some people just want to watch the world burn. Some people just want to control the weather. Some want to throw illusions around. And others just want to be one of the X-Men. This class is designed round high flash and magic but simple mechanics, and has really been a hit. I've already two people who want to play versions of it. The Archivist Wizard There are two types of people who want to play Vancian mages. People who want to be God, and people who want to explore, picking up weird spells, and finding really odd uses for them. And although the first type steals the game, there's nothing wrong with the second type at all. So why not create a class for them? After all that's what the class system is for. No free spells beyond some really pretty good cantrips, and otherwise strongly based on the AD&D Wizard. It is, however, a class that has impact on the setting even if the implied background has destroyed the orders of magic. Warlock By popular demand of one of my playtesters. I've added a lot of bite to the patrons I think - better descriptors and at least as much evocation of the pact themes. And some tricks to wrangle the other PCs into the Patron's clutches. Dark and twisted and with a lot of scope for style. Spirit Warrior People who want to play Barbarians (and this class also covers Wardens and Werewolves) want to be almost unstoppable rampaging forces of destruction. They don't want many mechanics to worry about - which is why the Spirit Warrior has no scene attack powers - they just get angry a lot and are very hard to put down and keep down. Pitched to the players. Ranger The bastard offspring of Legolas, Green Arrow, Hawkeye, and the Executioner Assassin. The Ranger really brings some specialties to an urban campaign (or they bring boxing glove arrows - and I'm not kidding there) but are extremely flexible and versatile with their bows, and are nature specialists. Anywhere from Green Arrow to hardened pro killers. There's a lot closer process mapping than in the 4e ranger - at least unless you take the option that lets the Ranger start throwing playing cards and cocktail sticks with lethal accuracy. To Come: Summoners Going to be fiddly - but kept lean. Summoners get to have friends and share actions. Because I'm breaking things by class, Summoners get half strength combat actions with their summons being worth the other half. Something you can't do if you're trying to fake universal mechanics, which is why all the 4e and PF Summoner types have been either broken or struggling. Classes can and should be built as mini-games in their own right. Monks The Monk is the rogue's cousin (and has been since the days of 1e). Self sufficient, using the same sort of Wirework Sfx the rogue gets, and getting behind the enemy lines and messing them about. 4e is the only version of D&D ever to have decent Monks - but I can't fit the 4e approach on a trifold. Which is a pity. So I'm just going to have to have a different style of character who can effectively fly and walk across rice paper. Vessels The Vessel is covering two contradictory archetypes. The Bringer of Divine Fire and the near-pacifist healer cleric. Its mechanical hooks include overchanneling - sacrificing their own Healing Surges for increased power and nosebleeds when they cast spells. And like the Holy Warrior, the worse things look the more dangerous they get. Absolutely more burnination power than the Innate Pyromancer - but the Pyromancer doesn't normally burn themselves. Vampires The 4e Vampire was a good idea that didn't quite work. Let's try it again. Complete with the Hammer Horror Camping Up Bard Another request (not that I'd let Bards not be represented - Vicious Mockery is too much fun. And I've gone back to the drawing board and deleted the Cold and Broken Bard (who had all their feat names taken from Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah) Bestiary Rock Ridge Bandits - L 1-3 Burning Zombies - Template neonchameleon fucked around with this message at 12:43 on Aug 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Under the bad side of things you should probably put bad math. I think most people have a fairly good understanding of why but I'll write a little capsule explanation. Updated, thanks. (And I should mention that 4th Trifold bans enhancement and item bonusses and PC to hit and AC scales by level).
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:The bad See, I would have said that this was probably the greatest feature of 4e. It understood that it was a manual for a game, and didn't try to muddle its rules text by inserting flavor sentences like older editions did; it was very visually well put together - especially the power blocks, which are probably one of the best innovations it brought to D&D. If there was anything I'd want to see in a 4e clone, it's 4e's layout and sensical composition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
I'm going to doublepost and tear apart the skill system at length. 4e's skill system is a mildly modified version of 3.5's skill system, with advancement rules being the biggest change. There are a total of 17 skills. One is dependent on Strength, one on Constitution, three on Dexterity, three on Intelligence, four on Charisma, and five on Wisdom. We could go into more detail about why a muscular dude is worse at intimidating people than a scrawny charmer, or how a fighter is likely worse at knowing the streets than a paladin, but these are mainly quibbles comparatively. More pressing is that classes have unequal access to skills, and where those sorts of critiques become meaningful is that certain classes are required to be trained in certain skills "appropriate to the concept" and all of them have more or less limited access to the skill list, more for martials and less for arcanes. Even this is secondary. Yes, it is bullshit that fighters are required to be dumb jocks, but even without these awful and stupid restrictions, there is still the basic structure of the skill system to contend with. People have argued, in my view convincingly, that the thing which doomed the fighter was the introduction of the Thief with unique "skills" and the ensuing belief that skills had to be defined or else you didn't have them. That is interesting but irrelevant to the core problem. It's not so much the math (although the suggested way to have epic-level challenges is something that falls apart for many skills within the base game and really is just a Red Queen's Race without significant work on the part of the DM) as it is the core concept. 4e's skills, on an abstract level, are gatekeepers and not keys. They serve as passive barriers to be unlocked rather than tools to solve problems. This is really the problem with skill challenges as well: they are just a string of gates you have to unlock in a row. How to fix this? Not without (partly) undoing unified resolution if we want to keep something that's basically 4e. What's necessary is removing pass-fail resolution (which already has been partially removed from 4e's combat system) and replacing difficulty class with a system where your numbers let you do things. This may look minor, but the difference between "you must roll a 20 or higher to unlock this lock" and "A 25 in Thievery allows you to unlock any lock within a turns's time" on a psychological level is big. This should also be coupled with a system of graduated results, so that a 20 requires two turns, a 15 five minutes, a 10 a couple hours, or whatever. This would be difficult for some skills, and that goes back to the minor problems, and addressing them by producing a cleaned-up list of skills. Or ditching rolling entirely, or something even more dramatic, such as building a D&D 6e by baking granular resolution into the core mechanics. Additionally, removing treadmills in general, though getting away from the tool/sandbox style of D&D, is something that would make the game more coherent, so that you can have a tactile understanding of how a Heroic, Paragon, and Epic character differ.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
Just crib 13th age's background rules for a decent solution to the skills problem. DnD's skills rules were never all that great.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Asymmetrikon posted:See, I would have said that this was probably the greatest feature of 4e. It understood that it was a manual for a game, and didn't try to muddle its rules text by inserting flavor sentences like older editions did; it was very visually well put together - especially the power blocks, which are probably one of the best innovations it brought to D&D. If there was anything I'd want to see in a 4e clone, it's 4e's layout and sensical composition. The strength there comes under clarity in my opinion. That it's very easy to work out what things in 4e do and to know where to find them. Effectronica posted:I'm going to doublepost and tear apart the skill system at length. Reason #4 to say Death To Ability Scores! (Which I've done and gladly with 4th Trifold). The 4e version of the d20 skill system takes out the obviously terrible parts of 3.5's - but keeps at least some of the structural weaknesses. quote:People have argued, in my view convincingly, that the thing which doomed the fighter was the introduction of the Thief with unique "skills" and the ensuing belief that skills had to be defined or else you didn't have them. This isn't so at all. Unless I've miscounted the 4th Trifold Fighter is overall more skillful than the 4th Trifold Rogue (indeed the two most skilled classes are the Fighter and the Warlord). But the Rogue can take an option that lets them pick pockets as a minor action. quote:That is interesting but irrelevant to the core problem. It's not so much the math (although the suggested way to have epic-level challenges is something that falls apart for many skills within the base game and really is just a Red Queen's Race without significant work on the part of the DM) as it is the core concept. 4e's skills, on an abstract level, are gatekeepers and not keys. They serve as passive barriers to be unlocked rather than tools to solve problems. This is really the problem with skill challenges as well: they are just a string of gates you have to unlock in a row. That depends how skill challenges are used. I've for a long time been saying that skill challenges are an attempt to bottle lightning and tried to get to the heart of how they are useful (including as partial success mechanics) with Trifold 4e. quote:How to fix this? Not without (partly) undoing unified resolution if we want to keep something that's basically 4e. What's necessary is removing pass-fail resolution (which already has been partially removed from 4e's combat system) and replacing difficulty class with a system where your numbers let you do things. This is something 4e already has - it just loads it onto the Powers system rather than the Skill system. The Power Deft Hands, for example, allows you to take a Thievery check as a minor action. In other words you can walk through a crowd and lift someone's wallet and walk on without breaking step. A brush pass and the wallet's yours. Now the chance of success at picking pockets is exactly the same, but anyone else would have to pick pockets as a standard action. Alternatively see the Thief's Acrobat's Trick (Climb Speed) or whatever the Monk's wirework flight ability is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
Next piece of my retroclone up - the first part of a bestiary. I've gone for a Nentir-vale like approach - but would like feedback as to whether other people think it works as an approach that will really help GMs?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Wilde Jagd posted:Just crib 13th age's background rules for a decent solution to the skills problem. DnD's skills rules were never all that great. That solves the "which skills" problem, not how and when to use them. (Though, see this elaboration and this post.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
I think the 4E trifold is pretty neat but I have to admit I find square grids simpler and more convenient from a perspective of "whip up a quick map on a whiteboard," and also I don't mind square fireballs possibly due to some inherent moral degeneracy. How much work do you figure it would be to convert over to gridded measurements? Is it just as simple as saying "squares, go" or do bursts/blasts have to be refigured in some fashion?
Kai Tave fucked around with this message at 08:42 on Aug 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
Here's my very basic ideas scratchpad, FWIW. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sIfQ9v-k8qskwU0eu_8u75CMZ8nXNHWT77uW6Up6FdI/edit Just one thing there: Wesnoth is The Battle for Wesnoth, a retro-style hex-based turn-based strategy game in which hexes Are Possibly Miles Across (HAPMA) which allows the game to pseudo-scale from single dudes dungeon crawling around the place, to full-scale army battles across entire cities, by assuming that the bigger the scale is, the more guys a single unit represents. So at battle-scale, the PC figure might be the PC leading a unit of people with similar abilities. I always thought DtAS was about attack scaling, not skill checks. I kinda like the attribute system when it comes to skills, but I think the non-combat utilities ought to go further, maybe even to the point of having a separate non-combat class... I just think the game should assume that all adventurers are at a baseline, competent people capable of dashing heroics. Everyone can wield a simple weapon, climb a mountain, run a mile, swim a river, hold a conversation without eating their own tongue, and know what the gently caress that wibbly arcane thing over there is, in a non-stressful situation. Your skills and class abilities tell you how good you are at it when the heat is on - time pressure, tough environments, expecting ambush at any time, etc etc etc. I like the basic approach of 4th trifold though =)
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 09:04
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:I think the 4E trifold is pretty neat but I have to admit I find square grids simpler and more convenient from a perspective of "whip up a quick map on a whiteboard," and also I don't mind square fireballs possibly due to some inherent moral degeneracy. How much work do you figure it would be to convert over to gridded measurements? Is it just as simple as saying "squares, go" or do bursts/blasts have to be refigured in some fashion? No problem at all if you are at all used to 4e - the only question I can think of is whether you want to turn cones into 1/2/3 cones or back into blasts. @thespaceinvader, I don't have permission to access that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Oops, shared it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I'm going to doublepost and tear apart the skill system at length. Yeah, I have much the same beefs with skills as you;
This is a big gripe of mine with some classes, in addition to having to try and balance out your spread so that your defenses are on par. Warpriests and Sentinels come to mind, where your tertiary stat could either be DEX or INT but oh hey, look at all those DEX skills on your class list  And that's the other thing; the DCs are such that you have to be trained AND have a high stat to really be good at a skill. IMHO they should have had those things be mutually exclusive, not stacking. I think 5e was onto something when they did stuff like "Half-Orcs get advantage on Intimidation" (which I think they have since walked back, but w/e) and flirting with de-coupling skills from ability scores. But of course they got cold feet. thespaceinvader posted:I always thought DtAS was about attack scaling, not skill checks. I kinda like the attribute system when it comes to skills, but I think the non-combat utilities ought to go further, maybe even to the point of having a separate non-combat class... Combat stat requirements determining your out-of-combat efficacy is definitely a big DTAS talking point, if not the biggest or the only one. However you wanna split up those maths is sort of a personal design choice. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Aug 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Send in the Clones SteakPunk: Extreme BBQ RPG - a P.d0t and Error 404 joint Drawing on the mechanical framework of: The Unnamed RPG | (Character Creation Advice) - by P.d0t So, my game began its life as something completely different, but in the past 2-ish years has evolved into an attempt to simplify and streamline 4e. I could go into detail about the previous intentions and incarnations, but this is a thread about 4e clones, so I'll focus on how this game fits the bill. 4e does a good job of keeping the math within expected bounds (assuming you have an 18 in your primary and whatnot). Until it gets bloated and power creep starts to happen.Also, feat taxes. People harp on feat bloat all the time, but powers get little mention in that regard. I once had a friend whip up a cleric for me; I had 2 encounter powers that did exactly the same damage, except one was "an ally can spend a healing surge" on a hit, and the other was as an Effect. Seriously? So, keep the game tight and simple. Attributes Unnamed RPG uses 3 attributes, with very narrow, defined ranges, that set the mathematical framework for your character. That's it; they don't tell you how smart or strong or you are. They just provide math. They are unnamed; the distinction the rules makes between them is which is Highest, Middle, and Lowest. It is intended that each possible array have benefits and drawbacks, but all will be equally playable and not gimp your math; as a designer, I tried to idiot-proof it, basically. Powers I think powers as a formatting method are a useful way of dispensing game rule information; working on SteakPunk, it was so much easier to be able to acknowledge "hey this is a knockoff, so I can format this as a power and use 4e verbiage" whereas in The Unnamed, I tried to write everything out in sentences, hoping people unfamiliar with 4e could pick up on the rules easier. That said, I kind of balked at the idea of having to have as many powers as 4e does to flesh out the classes. I wanted to make something more "universal" if for no other reason than I am  . It also allows each class to more easily fill different roles in a party, which allows you to break down the 4e-ism of "you need to have 5 PCs and preferably all 4 roles."Equipment Also, weapons are greatly simplified. Somewhere along the way, I decided I had no use for the typical polyhedral dice set, and set myself on using only d6s and d10s. This eventually led to having only 1d6 and 2d6 as the weapon dice. 4e does a good job of keeping defenses within an expected range (especially compared to 3.5) so that was something I wanted to emulate. I struggled a bit, at first having a complex rock-paper-scissors setup, but as with 4e, targetting a weak defense was just an obfuscated "yet another +X to attack." So there is only one Defense stat, which is based on your "Armaments" (or, in SteakPunk, your "Approach") The weapons and armaments are never given fluff; you can describe them as whatever you want. As with Attributes, they are just there to provide a mechanical framework. Core Mechanics and Skills Since there is a little bit of earlier D&D influence in this game, I wanted to have rolled HP be a component of your total hitpoints. This is what led me to the creation of the Advantage mechanic used in the game, which then later became expanded and applied to (potentially) all types of rolls; in SteakPunk, we actually changed the HP mechanic to something else, ironically enough, and I'm going to integrate that rule into future revisions to Unnamed RPG. (an idea that may make it into future revisions is to allow write-in skills a-la 13th Age backgrounds, rather than everyone picking from a short, defined list) I wanted to keep some sort of a unified mechanic, so 1d6+1d10 is kind of the default action. Where SteakPunk steals the DW skill/move system, Unnamed RPG has a homebrewed skill setup with its own math. Essentially you assign each of your attributes to 2 skills; this means you can be good at unrelated skills, as your skills are not determined the same way as they are with traditional Ability Scores. SteakPunk goes the other way, assigning your Attributes to Social, Mental, and Physical, applying those mods to the appropriate skills/moves (which is a setup that hews close to earlier incarnations of Unnamed). Math I didn't like the numbers bloat of 4e, so I stripped it down. The only numbers that go up are Damage and HP; you need SOME numbers to go up, so there is at least the feel of progression. A lot of times in 4e, though, numbers going up didn't even feel that way. I made it so there are usually only 2 modifiers (max) for any roll: an Attribute, and sometimes your Tier level (essentially, 1/4 of your level) No +X from magic items and etc. Situational bonuses are strictly based on positional considerations; powers either deal damage or inflict penalties, so there isn't the "there's always another +1" poo poo going on. Role, Class, Power Source I wanted to have these things all separate, so you can sort of build your own class. 4e started with Role and Class very heavily married together, and then sort of broke from that later on in the line. Sacred BBQ separates them out straight away, and I decided to go that route, too. I made up broad role abilities, that sort of emulate each of the different ways that 4e classes served their role. In SteakPunk, roles are given a passive benefit, and a key power, plus a choice of another power. I simplified power sources into basically Martial and Magical (in the text, they're referred to as Classes - the Warrior and Caster, or Butcher and Grillmeister in SteakPunk) The differentiation being basically "what can you do with weapons." There is no assumption that magical people have more influence or agency in the world; blowing poo poo up with pyrokinesis is pretty drat magical enough, magic doesn't need to do literally any/everything. This helps keep magic from stepping on the toes of the skill system; you can describe yourself being sneaky as I Am Awesome Rogue or as I Cast Invisibility, but everyone's playing by the same mechanical rules. I also didn't think the formulaic "2/ENC minor action heal" that Leaders got was particularly inspiring; I decided to make Leaders more about enabling their teammates and got rid of the "also is the only person who can heal you" part. There is also no mention of the words "heal" or "dying" so that HP can be abstract. The Adventuring Day is likewise explained to be "any length of time" rather than a literal 24-hour day. Another keystone of Roles, is that I didn't want the benefits that roles provide to be easily imitated by feats. Feats I wanted feats to be sort of optional, and the bonus feats provided by Armaments are intended only to help emulate "class features" of certain class/archetypes. Some feats provide Advantage to certain rolls, so while increasing your odds of rolling high and raising your average results, it does not bloat the numbers ceiling with +Xs. Other feats let you use a higher Attribute in place of the default. It is important to note, that neither of these types of feats give you bonuses to attack or defense; the math on those is intended not to change (i.e. the "Bounded Accuracy" that 5e only pretends to do) The third type of feats are the sort that actively expand what your character can do, giving you additional powers or augmenting your attacks in similar ways. Would You Like to Know More? Post here or hit me up on PMs! Probably the funnest part of working on SteakPunk with Error 404, is it basically required me to teach him how the system works. If you're interested, I'm more than happy to go over it with you. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Aug 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
I'm still trying to figure my bestiary out - but am working on the basis that a bestiary should be adventure seeds more than anything else. So last part was the Rock Ridge Bandits for the orthodox bestiary monsters - but I've just added a Bestiary Template (inspired by War of the Burning Sky). Burning zombies. How well does this approach work for people?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Seems pretty good, just make sure to do the math and stuff. Having some "expected DPR" guidelines for PCs and then extrapolating Monster HP and Defenses (like MM3-on-a-Card or somesuch) is good poo poo and having templates seems like a good way to overlay Interesting Stuff™ onto the math-chassis.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Seems pretty good, just make sure to do the math and stuff. I'm actually working the other way. The monsters work using math that close enough to MM3 on a business card that you can actually use MV (and MM3, DSCG, and MV:NV). The static damage of +level/2 is getting close to an optimised character who per tier gets +2 enhancement bonus, +2 item bonus, +1 feat bonus, and +1 to their primary stat (a couple of classes have static of +level/3 or even +level/4).
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
So obviously AFTER the 4th contest I get an idea. Basically I wanna make a Space Opera game that uses a rulesset that's pretty close to a reverse-engineered 4e. Everyone has combat powers and is roughly equal, classes define those combat roles, there are per-battle and per-day abilities, etc. (Part of this is that there are so many dungeon crawling games now and I'm really not interested in writing the hundredth variant on "Elves live in trees.") Have the rules live on in a different skin, basically. The flavor is pure Star Wars/Flash Gordon/etc. with an emphasis away from the gritty stuff that a lot of sci-fi games focus on. A heavy bias towards mid/late 70s aesthetics (like, Star Wars had a "used" look but it wasn't Alien) and craziness. So obviously SWSE would also be an influence as well as 4E. One potential issue is that in 4e, classes describe both combat role and much of the flavor, even though you can reskin the latter. (The limiting of skill choices is also a thing though changing that probably wouldn't break anything.) So, for example, I've figured out what a Martial Defender in the game would be- someone like Worf or Chewbacca or Groot who can just wade into combat and shrug off blaster bolts, whether it's because they're a crazy alien or just a Tough Guy. But just "fighter" probably wouldn't be a good descriptor for Chewie, who is also a pilot and does that a lot of the time. Classes in 4e and Saga, as in many other games, are tied to archetypes, and I'm not quite sure where the split the difference between classes and backgrounds/themes. Starships and such are the other big hurdle. There are many potential approaches/solutions- it's largely a case of just giving everyone something to do if they're all in one ship together, without making it so complex that when a spaceship fight breaks out you're playing an entirely different game. This is still entirely in the "musings" stage and I've got a few other writing-type projects that will take more time but... thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:So obviously AFTER the 4th contest I get an idea. You could try Gamma World's method of dividing class into two backgrounds that are merged together during chargen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
A well done reverse engineered 4e game with support for firefights would scratch a lot of people's itches. I was really excited to see the x-com-ish game in July's contest for that reason. So my first thought is go for it! I wouldn't worry too much about class representing an archetype. D&D is actually pretty bad at representing fantasy archetypes. In mythology for example, wizards are mysterious mentors and quest givers, not really PC material. D&D isn't much better in terms of representing fantasy fiction. How could you make a workable Harry Potter game, I think you'd go cross eyed trying to assign classes to everyone in The Game of Thrones. So I feel that a character's class is mostly how they fight in rules terms with only the barest of fiction layered on top. So to me, a 'fighter' is mostly a defender that has a lot of ability to control movement and is most effective up close, rather than a guy with a sword and armor who is dangerous to ignore in combat (and is therefore a defender). I feel that class defining both combat role and out of combat role is one of those sacred cows that should be slaughtered. What you replace it seems like it would depend on: 1) What are you going to do with Abilities? As constituted in d&d, they say a lot about what a character can do inside and outside of combat. 4e d&d (sorta)requires you to have a decent strength to be good in melee, which precludes you from being a wizened old kungfu master. Either dropping ability scores or making them not affect combat largely fixes that issue. Two basic approaches seem to be: pick 1 combat class from column A and 1 noncom class from column B or ditch skills entirely and just roll using ability scores. 2) What is the style and fluff of the game. What do you expect characters to do? If everyone is imagined to be a military character, your skill set would be what you did before, basic universal military knowledge, and your special training. You'd want that reflected in character creation, with the specifics dictated by 1.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
wallawallawingwang posted:1) What are you going to do with Abilities? As constituted in d&d, they say a lot about what a character can do inside and outside of combat. 4e d&d (sorta)requires you to have a decent strength to be good in melee, which precludes you from being a wizened old kungfu master. Either dropping ability scores or making them not affect combat largely fixes that issue. Two basic approaches seem to be: pick 1 combat class from column A and 1 noncom class from column B or ditch skills entirely and just roll using ability scores. 1. I'm not quite ready to go full DtAS, I want this to be fairly close to 4e mechanics with the obvious broken stuff fixed (feat taxes and such.) Of course something like the wizened kung-fu master I could do as a monk-type class that uses Wisdom for most attacks- in fact I think for most classes I will simplify in that direction, your prime requisite score is what you use for your major class stuff (and just say in chargen rules "Put at least this much there" a la Gamma World.) I'm leaning towards beefing up Themes as the second part of the character, and having those be like your occupation/archetype. So, to go back to Chewbacca, he's a Defender-class in combat but has the Pilot theme which makes him better at flying spaceships and repairing spaceships and so on. Han Solo's more of a striker with the Scoundrel theme, Princess Leia's a leader (spends equal time in combat shooting guys and telling her comrades to get moving) with the Noble theme, etc. 2. The style/fluff is- as you can guess there's a lot of Star Wars in there, and Battle Beyond the Stars and Guardians of the Galaxy and Buck Rogers. Space Opera with an emphasis on heroic action, aesthetics borrowing mostly from late 70s. The setting I'm only barely sketching out now, but basically a war between free planets and an encroaching evil empire, and the PCs are either by choice or by circumstance caught up in fighting the bad guys (who I think are psionic mind slavers- there are "good" psionicists as well, psionics will be a power source.) Everyone can fight, anyone can jump in a starfighter cockpit, you have smugglers and free traders but nobody gives a poo poo how many tons of molybdenum you have, etc. Lots of aliens and robots.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:1. I'm not quite ready to go full DtAS, I want this to be fairly close to 4e mechanics with the obvious broken stuff fixed (feat taxes and such.) Of course something like the wizened kung-fu master I could do as a monk-type class that uses Wisdom for most attacks- in fact I think for most classes I will simplify in that direction, your prime requisite score is what you use for your major class stuff (and just say in chargen rules "Put at least this much there" a la Gamma World.) As I mentioned upthread, having combat and skills tied to ability scores, you end up with "You're only really good at the skills tied to your primary combat stat" Which, I dunno, maybe you don't worry too much about, but for me that was something I wanted to change for my game. Like, 5e tries to do this by being like "well half of your skill proficiencies come from your Background! so they could be anything" but since Prof is a thing that stacks with ability mods, mathematically it doesn't really solve anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
My personal solution to still wanting ability scores, but wanting characters to be good at things besides whatever their fighting stat is, is to just have stats like "Shooting" and "Fighting" in addition to the normal ones. Why is this guy good at fighting, that's up to you! He could be strong, or quick, or have years of experience; your normal ability scores or your fluff can tell you the specifics as to why. Wizened unarmed guy can have a high wisdom, or dexterity, or hell strength even, all that would matter is that he's got lots of "Fighting" that is what makes him good at fighting in melee. But that does add stuff. And each time you add stuff to a project like this it tends to become a little more unwieldy. Another option might be to alter the math such that your attack mod is 1/2 level + enhancement + feats and such, and then just leave out ability scores from the to hit and damage portions of powers. Maybe give powers riders based on your ability mods to create class subtypes and differentiation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
I dunno if this is terribly applicable, but skill/ability chat reminded me of a post I made in the 5e thread that got glossed over by skeleton-chat. Short version: group skills into Skill Sets. You get proficiency/training with Skill Sets; individual skills within the set use different ability mods. Sound at all interesting/useful to anyone here?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:So, for example, I've figured out what a Martial Defender in the game would be- someone like Worf or Chewbacca or Groot who can just wade into combat and shrug off blaster bolts, whether it's because they're a crazy alien or just a Tough Guy. But just "fighter" probably wouldn't be a good descriptor for Chewie, who is also a pilot and does that a lot of the time. I agree with what's been said about separating class and day job, but if you are looking for a more sci-fi name than 'fighter' to describe the battlefield function of stopping squishy party members from being hit then something like 'Bodyguard' or 'Thug' would seem to me to work well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 08:48
|
|
|
Yeah I'm definitely gonna make Class and Theme the two big parts of your character. I may use the Gamma World approach of both parts determining your prime ability scores (18 for two or 20 for one) but I have to dig out my rule book for that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
P.dot: The solution I had to skills was (basically) have training in a skill grant you advantage on rolls related to that skill, and the exact nature of the task determine the stat that got rolled. So someone trained in smithing could roll Int or Wis to check the craftsmanship on a sword, or roll charisma to see if he knew a smithing related contact. It allowed multiple characters to both be good in the same domain but not necessarily in the same way. Actually, looking at the longer version you posted its pretty close to what I just proposed, so I guess what I'd ask is what do you hope to do by keeping the sub-skills? If the game is a 4e-alike, I'd actually be a bit more curious what you plan to do with all those juicy skill utility powers that were written but never used since they conflicted with your staying alive and winning fights utility slots. Does anyone know of a good collection of iconic, noteworthy, or powerful 4e builds? For my purposes, they can be iconic either because they were especially cool and fun or because they granted a useful mechanical advantage. It seems like if you wanted to trim down the feat/item selection/power picking minigame looking at common and noteworthy builds would be a good start.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
wallawallawingwang posted:My personal solution to still wanting ability scores, but wanting characters to be good at things besides whatever their fighting stat is, is to just have stats like "Shooting" and "Fighting" in addition to the normal ones. Why is this guy good at fighting, that's up to you! He could be strong, or quick, or have years of experience; your normal ability scores or your fluff can tell you the specifics as to why. Wizened unarmed guy can have a high wisdom, or dexterity, or hell strength even, all that would matter is that he's got lots of "Fighting" that is what makes him good at fighting in melee. But that does add stuff. And each time you add stuff to a project like this it tends to become a little more unwieldy. Another option might be to alter the math such that your attack mod is 1/2 level + enhancement + feats and such, and then just leave out ability scores from the to hit and damage portions of powers. Maybe give powers riders based on your ability mods to create class subtypes and differentiation. Alternately you could keep the existing stats (or some subset of them) and just rename them so as to be tied less to your physical/mental attributes; so melee dudes need lots of Then of course you just avoid basing out-of-combat skills on these in-combat stats. e: It's nothing to do with the math, but I could see asking my players something like "I see you have a high Resilience -- why is that? Are you big and tough? Or is it all mind-over-matter? Maybe you were dipped in a magic river as a baby?" megane fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Aug 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Huh, I just realized. Street Fighter would work wonders in 4E. What I've got so far:
Trollhawke fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Aug 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
wallawallawingwang posted:Does anyone know of a good collection of iconic, noteworthy, or powerful 4e builds? For my purposes, they can be iconic either because they were especially cool and fun or because they granted a useful mechanical advantage. It seems like if you wanted to trim down the feat/item selection/power picking minigame looking at common and noteworthy builds would be a good start. I've been working on a 4e lite that takes a lot of cues from B/X type games and what I did for this was to look up the ________'s handbooks (for a warlocky type character, one of the things i looked at was this: http://community.wizards.com/forum/4e-character-optimization/threads/1439381). This does add a bunch of additional reading to your task, but I found them really, really helpful. As a side bonus lots of those handbooks will call out powers that are neat but suboptimal, and often say exactly why. This is pretty useful because you some nice guidelines for yourself to revamp certain powers/feats/etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
TheSpookyDanger posted:I've been working on a 4e lite that takes a lot of cues from B/X type games Oh? Pray tell. If you're at the point to do so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
wallawallawingwang posted:P.dot: The solution I had to skills was (basically) have training in a skill grant you advantage on rolls related to that skill, and the exact nature of the task determine the stat that got rolled. So someone trained in smithing could roll Int or Wis to check the craftsmanship on a sword, or roll charisma to see if he knew a smithing related contact. It allowed multiple characters to both be good in the same domain but not necessarily in the same way. I know it probably wasn't the first game to do it but ever since reading through Reign, I've really fell in love with this skill concept. You can have two characters with the exact same skill layout, but one is a bookish scholar and one is a big idiot who can burn you to death with his mind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
Three unrelated thoughts: Prison Warden:I think I took that idea from OWoD. They had a sidebar in one of the vampire books explaining that even though they just spent a chapter telling you the expected combinations of Ability + Skill to roll in various situations, you could just add them together willy nilly. Realizing you could roll Strength + Athletics to do push ups, but roll Intelligence + Athletics to recall sports trivia blew my teenage mind. TheSpookyDanger: Despite some heavy eye bleeding caused by the semi-formatted mess that is the WOTC forums, I managed to find a really handy collection of builds that are focused on actual play rather than insane number crunching: http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/3524576 I'm sifting through builds not just to figure out what abilities are needed or expected in different character types, but also getting a sense of when combos and game changing abilities start kicking in. There is a lot to go through, but I'm starting to see patterns. Fluff! The world building fluff in 4e is, I think, one of its most under appreciated assets. But I'd argue that character powers (power broadly defined not a 4e power)aren't usually written in such a way to spark the imagination. Take the Stormwarden PP in the PHB. Its level 16 feature is: "As long as you are armed with a melee weapon and are capable of making an opportunity attack, two adjacent enemies (your choice) take lightning damage equal to your Dexterity modifier at the end of your turn." I get that rules need to be clear and concise. But I think having a greybox of text right above that clear and concise rule that explains what is going on in the fictional world would help with some of the bad listed in the OP. I think rituals were a missed opportunity in this area. Compare the incantations from 3.5 and pretty much any ritual in 4e. Compare this incantaion: quote:Hrothgar’s journey is an incantation based on the tale of Hrothgar, a powerful barbarian hero from ages past. When the poetic epic of Hrothgar is recited in the stifling heat of a sweat lodge during the winter solstice, the orator and his listeners receive the same final reward that Hrothgar did: a one-way trip to Ysgard’s plain of Ida, where they can drink and make merry with the greatest warriors of myth. To cast the incantation, the caster must construct a small, windowless hut in the middle of the forest, then build a bonfire in the hut’s center. At least four and up to twelve others accompany the caster into the hut. Then the flames are lit and the telling of the tale of Hrothgar begins. quote:This ritual works the same as Linked Portal, except that you can use it to travel to other planes. As with Linked Portal, your planar destination must have a permanent teleportation circle whose sigil sequence you have memorized. As I work on my own clone, how much should I worry about fluff in the early stages? How important is fluff in gaining interest and feedback from strangers on the internet? I'd guess it's pretty important but it also seems like the games that get the most attention and feedback, SBBQ and Trifold, are both fairly sparse on that front.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
Based on the fact that this is aiming to retclone 4e, I'd say: GET THE MECHANICS TIGHT FIRST. Flavour is relatively easier, doesn't need as much playtesting, and given the right structure (principally, doing something to ensure that narration happens before mechanical resolution) flavour is emergent from mechanics in a strong mechanical game. LIttle bits of fluff like that are cool, but also way too prescriptive. Having to build a bonfire in a windowless hut in a forest makes it impossible to cast in a desert or city, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
I think incantations were always meant to be custom made, and the Hrothgar one was an example of how incantations were meant to look like in general. "What if you're in a city or desert and can't build a tiny hut in a forest" shouldn't come up because if you are in one of those places the GM would come up with something appropriate to the environment. Obviously you could say the same thing about the ritual, that you could add some flavor in play and that the rules are meant to present a balanced framework independent any flavor, but rituals are so often dealing with kind of vague narrative problems that I'd wished they'd have made a more generalized, abstract system instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
wallawallawingwang posted:I guess what I'd ask is what do you hope to do by keeping the sub-skills? As I mentioned, this bit is more of an attempt at taking the 5e skill layout and doing something better with it. I liked the idea of mixing a a distinct skill with different ability scores to get a unique result i.e. Charisma(Deception) being "Bluff" and Dexterity(Deception) being "Sleight of Hand" or some such. Instead, all 5e gave us was the groundbreaking innovation of Alphabetizing skills by key ability  wallawallawingwang posted:If the game is a 4e-alike, I'd actually be a bit more curious what you plan to do with all those juicy skill utility powers that were written but never used since they conflicted with your staying alive and winning fights utility slots. I think non-combat Utility/Skill powers is better suited to class features than actual powers (see my quote below). I guess the problem is how close people want to hew to 4e design. Do they want the exact same power/feat progression? Or just something that "feels" like 4e and is a "spiritual successor" (I went for the later). I know neonchameleon seemed to be specifically aiming to be compatible with 4e, particularly w/r/t to being able to use the Monster Math from MM3/MV. I on the other hand, just burned the whole thing to the ground and started from scratch. thespaceinvader posted:Based on the fact that this is aiming to retclone 4e, I'd say: GET THE MECHANICS TIGHT FIRST. This is what I tried to to with The Unnamed RPG. At this point, I'd say it's less of a game and more of a set of mechanics. Check out the link upthread. Basically, the combat math takes care of itself without caring how smart or strong you are. Hell, even the skills don't really care how smart or strong you are. ... Tying into both of these posts, I had been pondering/panning an idea that would sort of be a more "fluffy" extension of some of the designs I've already posted. Here's what I got so far. P.d0t posted:I had the beginnings of an idea for a new game, and I can't get it out of my head. I've only just sort of begun to formulate stuffs for it, but here's what I've got. A lot of the ideas are DTAS and DW-ish so I thought it might tickle your fancy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
wallawallawingwang posted:Fluff! Actually, if you look at the Essentials and Essentials-ish books, there is a ton of Stuff that starts with Fluff Explanation and then is followed by a "Benefit:" paragraph. I like that, particularly compared to having it all mashed together like a trainwreck which is the way 5e does it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
That's actually really awesome. I've been relying on the online tools for content for a while now, so I've only ever seen the essentials stuff outside of their book form.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 19:35
|
|