|
I did this analysis many months ago in an attempt to come up with a customized amount of Inherent Bonus that would completely obviate the need to have any sort of gear treadmill or feat tax whatsoever: You could a similar thing with regards to Defense Bonuses. It's just that if you're using the Character Builder, it's easier to go "add this feat to your character for free" rather than "add this number to your character sheet instead". Maybe you could do the latter if you were running 4e off the books, filling in literal character sheets with actual pencils (or some excel spreadsheet, but still without the full WOTC tool).
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 19:33 |
|
|
After remembering to add in proficiency the BAB chart now works out to a 10 to hit an enemy of your level which seems to be what they intended. I feel like I wanna keep half level just because it's used in just about everything else and so it'd be at least consistent to have that marked out everywhere instead of "Okay, skills use half level but attacks don't."
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
I'm thinking DTAS then add your full level to every roll, but then I am also thinking 2d6 instead of d20. Oh, and fixed damage expressions for every power. PS. And dropping weapon damage for each weapon having it's own at-will or encounter
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:After remembering to add in proficiency the BAB chart now works out to a 10 to hit an enemy of your level which seems to be what they intended. The Next Project does this (hit on a 10-19, crit on a 20+) but also does some stuff to make it so the d20 isn't completely obsolete; namely, using Advantage/Disadvantage and having any pluses to your roll effectively increase your crit range. I mean, the reason I ended up using d20 was because using 1d10+1d6 for The Unnamed RPG made people get all butthurt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Druidcraft Crossposting this from The Next Project thread, since it's mostly 4e-related. So basically, if you were to retroclone a Shaman/Sentinel class as a Druid "build", what would be the key mechanics you would want to see? What would you do to improve on the foundation that 4e laid out?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 20:13
|
|
Research has begun into the Shaman archetype
|
After I made Phoenix Rising for National Game Design Month, I showed it to my friend. He felt I've been sticking too close to the familiar and dared me to try something I never would make otherwise. After all, I don't really have any intention at the moment of selling my NaGaDeMon games. So, I got to work making a rules heavy game with a big focus on traditional murderhobo adventuring with a heavy focus on combat. Not really familiar territory for me on a design level. I used 4e as a base to work off of, but changed a lot of the core math assumptions. The game is Yokai Blade and I'm frustrated with it, a bit. If anyone could look it over and tell me if the base is anything I could work off of, that would be greatly appreciated. Or any other comments, of course.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:It's just that if you're using the Character Builder, it's easier to go "add this feat to your character for free" rather than "add this number to your character sheet instead". Maybe you could do the latter if you were running 4e off the books, filling in literal character sheets with actual pencils (or some excel spreadsheet, but still without the full WOTC tool). Not to poo poo on you, personally, but IMHO the 4e CB is just another Sacred Cow for the BBQ.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 09:35
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Not to poo poo on you, personally, but IMHO the 4e CB is just another Sacred Cow for the BBQ. Oh, I don't disagree. In fact, I made mention of "if you were just going to write-up the character by hand" because that's something I'd like to do, sort of like how Amelia's character sheet in our PbP is a spreadsheet rather than a CB dump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 10:53
|
|
|
Without skimming through the whole thread, are there any more clones that are complete/playtest ready? Probably would be worthwhile to have an up-to-date list for the OP.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:What I ended up doing for [W] was basically 1d6+1d10+lvl (heroic), 2d6+2d20+lvl-10 (paragon), 3d6+3d10+lvl-20 (epic) Double-posting and quotin' myself, but I wanted to bring this up, because I had it on the brain. I basically reverse-engineered this from MM3 math, but another thing I did was use the d8 in place of the d6 for recharge dice. You have to kinda shoehorn the math a little, but you can make it work. You can also convert "bloodied" attacks to basically 1/ENC, and then slot those into the recharge die that way. I also ended up using it for other +math expressions. For Example: Battletested Orc (MV)
Orc Reaver (MV)
Duergar Scout (MV)
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
From the Next thread, this got me thinking:P.d0t posted:I think if you took 4e and excised all the feats and used 5e-style math, that would be awesome. And maybe give each class like 2-3 Roles they could spec into (Leader being particularly easy to slap onto most classes) With the Class Compendium guides, we already have a framework for a 3.5e/5e-style class progression thread that isn't as terrible as the Essentials classes. The Rogue for example would look something like this:  [followed by a bunch of paragraphs/blurbs below it to explain what "Deft Strike" is] Working off of the 5e framework that the d20 only really has two things added to it, the ability score and the proficiency bonus, what number could the proficiency bonus be, considering that it has to take the place of the half-level bonus, the weapon proficiency bonus (it would always be +3 for practical purposes?), and inherent bonuses/magic item enhancement bonuses? I'm thinking it would be +4 at level 1, and increase by 1 per level, and then +2 upon entering a new tier?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 10:12
|
|
|
I think if you want something particularly "backwards compatible" with 4e, Tier Level could probably be A Thing that you just straight-up add to attacks and defenses, since that gets rid of the need for your basic feat taxes. If you wanna junk the obfuscation of it all, the PC math is [level + prof + 5] for attack bonus (IIRC this accounts for ASI math, too) i.e. it assumes a 20 in your primary (+5) and that your ENH+Tier level+half level+pumping your primary every time, roughly = +1 per level ... I think. That's what some goon said, this one time  So, to answer your question, Prof would effectively start at... like, +3 and increase every level. Right?  I mean, alternatively, just drop everyone's AC by 2, and then you can just make prof "your level" but then that eliminates the "how do I make my MBA hit NADs" char-op mini-game, so it depends on if you put any value in having that as a part of your clone. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 10:53
|
|
|
Okay, thanks for validating my assumptions. That should work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
I had a thought, w/r/t trying to balance TWF, mostly within a 5e framework, but I know balancing Twin Strike has been discussed here. Would it be a good balance to do it something like this:
If we use 60% as the desired hit rate, that means "advantage" bumps that to 84% against enemies with the same AC. I'll use the 5e example of TWF (without the feat or fighting style) = 1 attack @ 1d6+mod, and 1 attack @ 1d6; compare that with a  two-hander -- 1 attack @ 2d6+mod damageMath: (60% * 1d6+3) + (60% * 1d6) = 3.9 + 2.1 = 6 average damage 84% * 2d6+3 = 9.52 average damage TWF Style and Dual Wielder feat let you add your mod to both attacks, and effectively bump the damage to d8s, respectively. Or: 2*(60% * 1d8+3) = 2*(4.5) = 9 average damage Now, if you keep increasing your damage mod (through ability increases or Iron Armbands or whatever) this will eventually start to skew, but I think if you keep those numbers low, the way 5e does (sorta) something like this could almost kinda work. I'm not entirely sure how something like Power Strike would interact with this, but I'm thinking "two chances to hit" is just as beneficial as "roll twice and use the better result" for those kinds of attacks, no?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
I think in that trade off it's still usually going to be better to attack more. I'm thinking I'll use the earlier "roll twice, if both hit do more damage" thing which I think still means any riders only trigger once, which is way more manageable. Twin Strike proper I may just move up to Encounter. I'm finding my Scanner class while Striker-y has a heavy control element too. Interesting combo and I think the "controllers" proper are going to be focused a bit more on area of effect and crowd control. (The Psion, like the Wizard, is very broadly defined because of tradition, so I'm thinking of more of a telekinetic class, focusing on throwing stuff around with your mind.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
I'm spinning my wheels on a numbers issue. I'm approaching my game from an inspired by 4e angle, which means I need to work out new damage and HP numbers. Basically, I can come up with a set of numbers that I like for a given level, and I've even been able to come up with a set of numbers that account for characters leveling up. But when I try and turn these abstract numbers into character options I keep hitting a wall. I just don't like my options or I'm missing something obvious. Here is what I'm working with:
Aside from the first two points, I'm not firmly married to any of this. Especially if dropping or changing an idea lets me do something cool. The system I've been working with the longest , that I'd like to replace, works more or less like this:
What I don't like about this setup is:
One thing I know I can do is make up a set of damage and HP options that create acceptable values, and then just drop the idea of showing character progression via bigger numbers. That means I'd need to show progress some other way, like increasing the number of encounter attacks, or increasing the number of targets for attacks, or just piling more feats and perks onto stuff. But I don't like that option because, frankly, I've got no idea how to begin balancing that and it seems like it would lead towards the bad old days of winging it encounter planning. The second option I've got that I'm lukewarm on is to just sort of mandate the numbers. EG, your HP is 16, 20, or 24 times your level and you can pick powers that do 4, 5, or 6 times your level in damage. The simplicity would be nice, but that also seems kinda... flat? I guess is the word I'd use. These specific numbers also might quickly become unmanageablely large. Any thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
wallawallawingwang posted:What I don't like about this setup is: drop attributes out of your combat math all together, keeping them only for skills etc if you can't get rid of them there. Just base your maths from the character level or tier.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
wallawallawingwang posted:
starkebn posted:drop attributes out of your combat math all together, keeping them only for skills etc if you can't get rid of them there. Just base your maths from the character level or tier. Yeah, this. Like, I'd say if you're aiming for damage of 4 + Level + Mystery Bonus [0 for weak, 1/2/3 for normal, 2/4/6 for strong] then say like:
normal damage is 1d8 + Level + TIer strong damage is 2d8 + Level Or whatever permutation of those feels intuitive/streamlined enough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Thanks for the feedback guys! I know one reason for DTAS comes from real differences in game design philosophy, stuff like how simulationist to be. I can also see specific problems and issues that arise from how 4e used and implemented ability scores, but I also feel like there are fixes or simple workarounds for most, maybe all, of these problems. But I'd like to read the argument that ability scores are irredeemable in a D&D context. (I hope I'm not coming off as combative or ungrateful. I'm legit interested in the broader reasoning for DTAS and willing to change my mind.) The process of forcing myself to write out the problem has given me a little bit of a different view on it. Namely I realize that some of my wants, at least as I've been thinking about them, are contradictory. I was leery of using a system where damage and HP get figured out at level 1 and stay the same throughout levels, but I also wanted a system where the relative weight and value of attacks stay the same throughout the levels. It seems obvious in retrospect, but a system that works to maintain damage percentages across levels is just an obfuscated non-increasing system, so using one doesn't really fix anything. What I'm really interested in showing is not absolute differences in power but relative differences.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
The way I look at it is this. If you must assume someone has maxed their prime stat then there is never any differentiation anyway. Every fighter of x type will have y stats. Every wizard can max INT and bam done. Every monk tries to get good stats and fails because they need too many. I want my fighter to be the best because he's really fighty, not really strong. I can then describe him however I want. Attributes don't actually add a thing because you have to build them a specific way depending on your class choice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
The simulationist idea behind making attribute scores an explicit thing is that: "he's strong, muscular, and powerful, therefore he has a bonus to melee attacks" Except this actually pigeonholes you into specific character concepts because now every Fighter has to be strong, muscular, and powerful. It can't be that your Fighter manages to get in the hits that they do because of their cutting wit being a huge distraction for the enemy. It can't be that your Fighter gets in the hits that they do because they've studied the enemies' art for years and can tell the weakpoints in their fighting style just from doing that. And if you jump through the hoop of making it so that "you can use INT to add to your melee attacks" via some feature, even if the feature is free and doesn't like cost a feat or anything, then you might as well cut out the middleman and go "your melee attacks always have a bonus of x. Bob, how does your Fighter get it?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
To play Devil's Advocate, you could turn that on its ear a little bit by having baseline ability score uses, and alternates based on class. My go-to example is the Warden using either CON or WIS for AC in place of the standard DEX or INT, or Skalds and Scouts using CHA or DEX (respectively) for MBAs. Basically, if ability scores inform skill competency, then combat competency also informs skill competency. If 4e had more exceptions-based ability score usage, it could get around it even more than it does. As it is, you either end up with a class that can use skill stats for their melee attacks and then suck at MBAs, or can be good at MBAs and suck at skills. And if hitting people with OAs is part of your "job," guess what? You end up sucking at skills. So you can try and shoehorn your attacks into whatever ability score you want your class to be good at (which is easier for spellcasting because ~MAGIC~) or you can just have combat math and skill math be de-coupled. E: to avoid double-posting... The other thing you can do is the reverse: give classes exceptions, to be able to use their combat stat for a variety of flavourful skills. Example: Paladins can use CHA for Heal and Religion checks. These 2 ideas put together are sorta the foundation of a heatbreaker I wanna do, at some point. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 11:32 on Feb 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 09:15
|
|
|
Just to be sure I've got it... (based on what I've read in this thread and a few other places) In D&D style games ability scores have both descriptive and prescriptive roles. They tell you what something is like (how strong you are) and they also inform the game's rules (how many points of damage you do when you punch something). This turns out to be a problem because the scope of the descriptions frequently doesn't match the scope of the prescriptions. One example of this is the strength ability score. It basically describes you how much a character can deadlift, but not how many sets they can do which is covered by constitution, how flexible these deadlifts have made them which dexterity covers, or how your fitness effects your attractiveness which charisma sorta kinda almost sometimes covers. But on the prescriptive rules side of things a character's strength score is usually the biggest determinant of how good they are in a melee, which the game assumes to be a big deal. This is exacerbated because fighting in melee could also be effected by all sorts of other things like your situational awareness which is usually represented by wisdom, or your hand eye coordination which is dexterity. On top of that, the ratio of description to prescription in ability scores isn't consistent. For a lot of classes intelligence has the opposite problem as strength. Intelligence represents nearly every facet of mental power: memory, creativity, logic and reasoning, and education. It depends a bit on the edition but all of that mental power does nearly bubkis in the rules, unless you're a wizard in which case it does everything but only if you phrase your action in the form of a spell. Taken all together it means that a fair number of archetypes can't be represented by the rules very well, and that characters frequently have oddball skill sets and an inability to do tasks that they clearly ought to be able to. There are ton of solutions and workarounds to these problems, each with its own pros and cons. Here are a few of the more common ones: Exceptions! Create a specific rule to account for the biggest mismatches between what the ability scores mean and what they actually do in the rules. Rogue powers let you make melee attacks with dexterity and shirtless barbarians can add their constitution to their AC, that sort of thing. 4e did this, but probably not to the extent that it could or should have. This option gives you a healthy sized dose of simulation without drowning you in synergy bonuses and the like. For good or ill, it also only lets you support the archetypes that you specifically make room for, so you could make exceptions just for combat but leave ability score-skill stuff in place. You could also easily miss something important, like basic attacks. If you’re generous enough with the exceptions it becomes fair to ask why even use ability scores in the first place. Split ‘Em! Keep ability scores as a way to describe what a character is like but make them have zero effect on combat. The math will just work, and players can apply whatever fluff they’d like onto a mechanically solid chassis without having to square circles. You can even get character differentiation because a strong fighter is going to be good at different skills than a smart fighter. On the other hand, it has the potential to create its own oddball representational issues too. Like, why is my muscle wizard so bad at fistfights? The only real answer is because he’s a wizard and so he doesn’t have very many hit points and no good melee attacks. The degree to which you’ll like this option seems to depend on which question you think is worse: “Why can’t I play a muscle wizard” or “Why does my muscle wizard play like a creampuff.” Eliminate Choice! You’d just grant every character of a particular class the ability scores they need to do well and to make the math work. This is more of a sub option since you can mix and match it with the others. Players can differentiate characters a little bit by varying their non-primary ability scores without risking the chance of making a trap option character. The flip side is that characters are going to be reverse pigeon holed, the choice to make a wizard with average intelligence is taken away from you. Besides if you’re going to go ahead and just mandate level appropriate numbers, why take the extra step of running them though ability scores first. Death to Ability Scores! Fix the problem by getting rid of the idea all together. Everything that is customarily handled by or affected by ability scores gets offloaded onto something else: class, skills, feats. Strike! did this and Strike! is really good. Of course, a fair number of players really enjoy the character building mini game and this option seems like it will inevitably slim down that piece of the game. It also has some of the same issues of representation that splitting ability scores from combat does. Comedy option: Double Down! Just go full elf simulator and make the rules account for every weird edge case. I really want to write something snarkier here, but to be fair 3.X and pathfinder are perceived to have done this and they’re really popular. This is the absolute least 4e-esque way of handling the problem and will make your rules set a giant tangled morass. Does that about sum it up?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
wallawallawingwang posted:Does that about sum it up? Pretty much. "Eliminate Choice" is sort of disingenuous (and I'm not blaming you for that, just to be clear) because it's more like "eliminate trap options." 4e does a good job of this, by telling you where to put the high numbers, and then you end up fitting into the math framework they've built for you, just like a paint-by-numbers. The only thing is, you can still technically do your ability scores wrong, and end up sucking; there's nothing mechanically in the game making you do the right thing. Isn't having "choice" great?  If you want to see an example (shameless plug, incoming) of stripping out modifiers completely, check out my very own The Next Project. Dice do everything, and skill distributions are made a lot easier and more flavourful by not having mathematical ability scores, in the traditional sense. On the topic of "non-primary ability scores" I would really enjoy/love to see a 4e clone where classes are more free to pick their secondary or tertiary ability scores. Skald is about the only class in 4e that scratches that itch for me. I imagine it might end up with the 5e problem, where DEX and CON are always the popular choice, but you could probably finesse it or limit it in some way without completely pigeon-holing, maybe?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 10:28
|
|
|
Coming late to this convo, I dropped the effect of Ability Scores on accuracy (replacing it with a "Basic Attack Bonus"), but kept it for damage. My logic was, in 4e CharOp circles, you want to have an 18-or-better in your classes' key ability, rather than the 16 the designers assumed, because that extra +1 to accuracy is a significant increase in your capability (because accuracy is the closest thing the game has to a god stat), but getting the same bonus to damage is not as powerful. But if you want to completely decouple Ability Scores from combat that's valid too. The thing about 4e proper is that it's built around strong mathematical assumptions and benchmarks at each level (hence page 42 and the MM3 math) but they disguise a lot of it. The end assumption for combat is that you hit an opponent of your level on a 10 or better, but to make it look like accuracy bonuses and defense bonuses etc. matter, they split that bonus into things the player can fiddle with, like ability scores and proficiency bonuses and so on. I'm not entirely opposed to this because there's a certain psychology to "Yay, now I have a +8 to hit!" Like I find one of the things I really admire about 4e is that it's very elaborate and crunchy and has all sorts of little things you can manipulate in building and in play, while at the same time it's strongly balanced. There's definitely cruft worth shedding but I'm trying to be careful not to lose that sense of having lots of toys to play with. Finished the Seeker/Scanner/whatever it ends up being called, now on to the KIneticist, or- whatever. I need to get better at naming these things. Basically the Psychic Controller, focused on throwing poo poo around. Split between environmental effects and burst attacks. Like the Wizard the Psion was, pre-4e, a catch all "can do magic/psionics" class, so I'm forced to come up with a more focused build. I've decided powers aren't the hard part of doing a 4e clone, it's class features. For the Kineticist I already have a "Light Telekinesis" power which works kind of like Mage Hand, and maybe some environmental control to go with it. (Can brighten or dim lights, raise or lower the temperature just a little, etc.- cosmetic on its own but can be used to the team's advantage.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:The thing about 4e proper is that it's built around strong mathematical assumptions and benchmarks at each level (hence page 42 and the MM3 math) but they disguise a lot of it. The end assumption for combat is that you hit an opponent of your level on a 10 or better, but to make it look like accuracy bonuses and defense bonuses etc. matter, they split that bonus into things the player can fiddle with, like ability scores and proficiency bonuses and so on. I'm not entirely opposed to this because there's a certain psychology to "Yay, now I have a +8 to hit!" Like I find one of the things I really admire about 4e is that it's very elaborate and crunchy and has all sorts of little things you can manipulate in building and in play, while at the same time it's strongly balanced. There's definitely cruft worth shedding but I'm trying to be careful not to lose that sense of having lots of toys to play with. This is good insight. It's similar to how other games suggest monster / NPC stat construction as being based off of the average of the group's capabilities - if you set the AC of an enemy against the to-hit of the melee combatant, then the melee combatant isn't really getting any extra value out of optimizing their attack stats, except where relative to their partymates.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:The thing about 4e proper is that it's built around strong mathematical assumptions and benchmarks at each level (hence page 42 and the MM3 math) but they disguise a lot of it. The end assumption for combat is that you hit an opponent of your level on a 10 or better, but to make it look like accuracy bonuses and defense bonuses etc. matter, they split that bonus into things the player can fiddle with, like ability scores and proficiency bonuses and so on. I'm not entirely opposed to this because there's a certain psychology to "Yay, now I have a +8 to hit!" Like I find one of the things I really admire about 4e is that it's very elaborate and crunchy and has all sorts of little things you can manipulate in building and in play, while at the same time it's strongly balanced. There's definitely cruft worth shedding but I'm trying to be careful not to lose that sense of having lots of toys to play with. I sort of come out the other end on this. Like, the analogy I would make is staring at the code, of The Matrix. After a while you can pick out "blonde, brunette, redhead" but hiding it behind a bunch of Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:I sort of come out the other end on this. Like, the analogy I would make is staring at the code, of The Matrix. After a while you can pick out "blonde, brunette, redhead" but hiding it behind a bunch of Well to me I feel like that's an area of design that Strike! and similar games already cover, while that specific mix of crunchy fiddlyness and really balanced design is something the industry is both A) moving away from because of the narrative that 4e was a horrible failure, hence "we can't have too much balance!" and B) something that's a challenge to get right in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Kineticist powers are done. I ended up splitting them between AoE environmental stuff (fires, lightning, etc.) and being able to throw projectiles with your mind. For the latter I gave them a proficiency in Improvised Thrown Weapons and the ability to always materialize something like that. Now the Psychic Defender, which I'm calling the Crusader. More like the Paladin than the Battlemind, the idea is you use your psychic powers to make people pay attention to you. I envision the archetypal Crusader being a bit like Lady Gaga.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
Also, as a side thing, I'm doing this: Hacking Fourth Wherein I ramble about the core assumptions of the 4e system in a way that hopefully makes it useful for OGL projects. A lot of the stuff I find will probably be old news to all of you but having it all in one place might help somebody.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
I am now "following" your blog, fellow Canadian 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 07:35
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:I am now "following" your blog, fellow Canadian I'm not Canadian?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
well your blog is .ca so wtf? e: or it redirects me to .ca for reasons unexplained
P.d0t fucked around with this message at 08:12 on Apr 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
Crusader powers are done! One class remains, the Psi-Knight, a Psionic Leader. Since the Commander was seriously focused on ranged attacks I'm making this more the one who gets into the melee fray. The 4e Cleric is all about hitting things to give out buffs and heals and so forth, and that works with my idea here- the Psi-Knight uses the psychic bond between them and their friends to strengthen them. So pretty Jedi-esque (though I envision the Crusader makes a pretty good Jedi too, and with the right background other classes might reskin the same way.) As a side note, creating powers in the Psionic structure is WAY harder than the standard AEDU. With most classes, the At-Wills are the things you're gonna do almost every round and they stay the same through all three tiers (only going up in damage on Epic). Here you're actually replacing your At-Wills as you go up so you have to think of new core abilities and how they can be expanded. Also that "Augment 1" is a problem because it's like half-way between an At-Will and Encounter power in terms of usefulness, so it has to be some extra quirk that kinda boosts the power, usually not via damage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
I've been doing some updates to The Next Project, basically bringing the core math more into line with 4e. I just wanted to run this by y'all and see if this makes sense. Assume an average PC has 28 HP, and can deal either 15 DPR of HP damage, or 3 DPR of HD damage. What the gently caress does that mean? Basically, regular-type monsters have HP, whereas simple monsters have HD; your 4e-style minion essentially has 1 HD. So you can scale up the number of dice-worth of damage you need to kill a "simple" monster, essentially creating 2-hit or more-hit minions. For simplicity, simple monsters deal an amount of damage equal to their HD. Now, if you want to have combat last 3 rounds, and reduce the party's HP by about half, it makes sense that 28/3 should be the monster's (damage expression), assuming you hit on a 10+ roll on a d20. So, this means if you have standard monsters at a 1:1 ratio with PCs, their (damage expression) should be 9 or 10 (say, 1d6+6, or 1d10+4), their HP should be around 45, and their HD equivalent should be about 9 or 10 (i.e. 9 monsters of 1 HD or, like, 3 monsters of 3 HD) ...right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
I kinda see where you're going, but maybe have some in world idea of what HD damage is. Like a 3 HD zombie is a zombie that you just have to hack apart and it takes three good whacks- there aren't HP because there aren't any superficial wounds or ways to knock the wind out of them, you just gotta cut 'em up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:I kinda see where you're going, but maybe have some in world idea of what HD damage is. Like a 3 HD zombie is a zombie that you just have to hack apart and it takes three good whacks- there aren't HP because there aren't any superficial wounds or ways to knock the wind out of them, you just gotta cut 'em up. Yeah, that's basically the idea. Some classes can stack damage dice (like the Rogue, with Sneak Attack) which allows them to flatout just blow up multi-HD monsters with a single attack, whereas other classes can multi-attack and focus fire that way (like the Monk, with Flurry of Blows.) Some classes have to spread their HD damage around, but they're usually REALLY good at HP damage, if that's the case (i.e. d12 damage) edit: to add/clarify When I ran 4e and used 2-hit minions, it was more like "2 at-wills to kill"-minions. Hits with Striker features such as Quarry or Sneak Attack would always kill them outright, as well as Crits, and (most) Encounter powers -- it got kinda hairy if your Encounter involved 2 attacks with 1[W] each, sorta thing. Miss damage from Dailies usually took 1 "hit" off of them, too. Basically, I want to design a monster/encounter-building system where similar monsters are an assumption that's built-in, rather than something you have to try and shoehorn around. So basically they aren't 2 "hit" per se, but they need to take 2 dice-worth of damage to kill; a single basic attack/at-will with 1[W] and no form of damage boost won't do it. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Apr 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
Looking to D&D (particularly 4e) for inspiration, I'm trying to think of some more classes I could write for The Next Project. Current Classes:
Current Archetypes (subclasses that would/could typically be their own class)
So aside from Cleric, is there any sort of must-haves that I'm missing? Or anything from 4e or 3.X that had particular neat mechanics, that I should consider? Or else, something to fill a niche or role/power source I've missed? I kinda want to do 5 classes each, for 4-5 power sources; I just also want to make sure there is enough material for each class.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:
I can see how you might not want them, but one thing missing is races/species or monsters-as-classes. Like, yeah, a vampire can just be a rogue that has a picture of a vampire on the character sheet, but there has always been D&D demand for mechanics for being one of those things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 19:33 |
|
|
homullus posted:I can see how you might not want them, but one thing missing is races/species or monsters-as-classes. Like, yeah, a vampire can just be a rogue that has a picture of a vampire on the character sheet, but there has always been D&D demand for mechanics for being one of those things. One thing I've found myself bumping up against a few times with this, is when people request a class, and then I reply with, "Well I've never played one, can you tell me what it does?" TNP is fairly... mechanically-exposed, I guess you could say, so I have to have a firm idea of what a 'class' does in order to write it. What are some races that people clamour for? Forums-poster Ryuujin would be one person to ask (I should probably just buy him plat at this point  )Dragon(mans)? Lich? Manbearpig?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 16:18
|
|