|
You definitely want to follow 4e's example and make sure that every action feels like a character is doing something awesome in its own right. A standard action heal almost never just heals, it always does damage and heals, a lot of heals only use a minor action. For star ships battles, I'd want to know how characters are distinguished by the game's skill system and then map those skill specialties to combat roles. If you have a tech specialty (comprised of however many skills), you could map that to repairing the ship, which seems fairly leader-y. I'd also want to point out that starship battle rules could actually get mapped to general army vs army battle rules pretty easily so long as you think of an army as a single unit. I don't really have a conclusion to this thought, but I keep thinking that in real life most full fledged battles have goals beyond "Kill all the other guys," and that taking skirmish combat and just scaling it up in size doesn't add that dimension to a battle. Maybe instead of winning by reducing the other side's HP to 0, you win by scoring a set amount of victory points in a set amount of time, or keeping the other side from scoring a given amount of VP over a certain number of rounds. You could score VP by damaging the other side, but also bu forcing them outside of certain zones, or by keeping yourself in a given zone. There is this well thought out design for combat and I keep thinking the game could benefit if the skills system worked more like the combat system and large scale battles seem like a good place to start bridging that gap.
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:03 |
|
|
I think the cleanest solution to a problem like that is: 1.) Give 1 or maybe 2 powers in Starship combat based on skill specialty, so a Tech specialist gets a heal/buff or suchlike. 2.) Give different ship modules different roles and powers and be explicit about what role they fill. Controller Module: Drone Launching Pad would be interesting; Striker Module: Skirmish Package (medium-heavy machine guns and reaction-thrusters to avoid hits). The big challenge I think with space combat is that it's basically static; even if all players can contribute to movement (and they should) they're basically all glued together into a single ball while they take on other mobile challenges. This is unlike the personal-level combat space where characters move individually around a grid and have a higher level of agency over their own tactics. Space combat should be short; otherwise it'll feel very sloggy, even if everybody has something to do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Also, fun fight gimmick for you: You mentioned having a simplified schematic for where each player is in the ship. In one fight, bust out a map of the ship itself in the middle of a space combat and have enemies beam aboard the PCs ship so they have to fight off intruders while still flying the ship.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Good suggestions all. There will definitely be minion equivalent starfighters ('snubs' maybe) that explode on one hit, at least if nobody important is on board. Damaging specific systems is going to have to be a thing, so you can have "the hyperdrive is damaged, we'll have to land on this hostile world and see if we can get it repaired." And fights against capital ships will largely be about taking out key systems (weapons, shield generators) in order to blow things up instead of just doing hull damage. Maybe whenever a smaller ship goes against one it's more like an environment with mini-enemies (gun batteries and such).
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:It's something I need to fix; UK standard A4 paper (210*297mm) isn't quite US standard letter paper (216*279mm). I forget which it works on (I'm in the UK). I possibly need two versions of the sheets to get them right which would be really irritating. Strangely enough, if I download the documents as .docx the formatting is perfect. I'll just chalk this one up to Google Docs being weird.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Okay, brainstorm on spaceships based on thread input- A spaceship is basically a collection of modules, each with HP based on level. (For the sake of simplicity all modules in a ship are the same level.) A module has a level, HP, powers, and a role. Starfighters are usually single modules, cruisers are 4-6. It works like monster math, I think- the basic level 1 module has a certain AC and damage and so on, you add to that based on its role and level. Keeping things moving fast will be a concern- there should be a way to disable a ship without taking out every single module. HP could be lower or damage higher. Capital ships get built around "elite" modules. So a cruiser vs a capital ship is a bad proposition but if it's a big battle with allies taking fire you may be able to target single modules. For something like the Death Star you'd have the equivalent of a landscape with individual modules for gun towers, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
So, okay, I've finally got a group that might actually be amenable to giving my take on this stuff a try, so I'm finally gonna actually do the DTAS-style retroclone thing. Here's what I'm thinking so far: COMBAT STUFF:
FEATS:
SKILL STUFF:
No class skill lists. You pick three skills you're great at, three you're terrible at (I think I'm going to say that thinky knowledge skills like Arcana, Spirits, and Nature count for one-half when you're picking out your three weaknesses, because one person failing a knowledge check is almost never anywhere near as consequential as, say, one person failing to climb or move silently), and four you're good at. (I'm not super attached to the amounts of skills you get to pick in each category, it could be four/two/five or whatever, this is kind of off-the-top-of-my-head, feel free to speak up about that. And I haven't quite hashed out what the bonuses/penalties for great/good/terrible should be, I'll have to look again at the DCs-by-level guidelines.) I'm also going to rewrite each skill's description to have a hell of a lot more explicitly-granted player-fiat abilities, like, "if your X skill is +15 or better, you can do Y, no roll needed". Thoughts? Am I full of poo poo? Is this all super ill-conceived or really superfluous or overambitious or, I dunno, something else? Iny fucked around with this message at 11:17 on Feb 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 11:07
|
|
|
Iny posted:Thoughts? Am I full of poo poo? Is this all super ill-conceived or really superfluous or overambitious or, I dunno, something else? This all seems fine to me. That said: The best reason to hew close to the existing math is so that you can use the MM3/MV monsters (which IIRC was the intent with 4th Trifold) and specifically so you can more easily flesh out combat with below-level enemies. If neither of those are useful/desirable objectives to you (and I've put this fingerprint all over the thread) just throw out the math and start with something simpler. Is there anything specific you're on the fence about?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
I was looking at the Dungeon Master's Screen from the Essentials line, and I stumbled upon a Damage by Level table. Excerpt: pre:Level Single Target Two or More Targets 1 1d8+4 1d6+3 2 1d8+5 1d6+4 3 1d8+6 1d6+5 If one were to use these die expressions for W, how would that work out? Are there powers that don't base their damage off of W? Does W already naturally scale up to keep pace with monster HP even using standard rules?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Iny posted:Thoughts? Am I full of poo poo? Is this all super ill-conceived or really superfluous or overambitious or, I dunno, something else? It seems like skills are where you have the most unknowns, which makes sense, that was the area 4e probably fell down the most. General skill thoughts:
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I was looking at the Dungeon Master's Screen from the Essentials line, and I stumbled upon a Damage by Level table. If you're not already familiar with "MM3 on a business card" from Blog of Holding, google that post-haste. In either case, what I ended up doing for [W] was basically 1d6+1d10+lvl (heroic), 2d6+2d10+lvl-10 (paragon), 3d6+3d10+lvl-20 (epic) If you have poo poo like Twin Strike or Shield Bash on your monsters, just break that damage up amongst their attacks per round (Monster Vault Minotaurs are a good example, off the top of my head) You can also convert attack rolls to 1d20+1d8+lvl 
P.d0t fucked around with this message at 09:31 on Mar 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
That's what I was saying: I did compare the average damage from these die expressions against the HP levels of a monster constructed from the MM3-on-a-business-card guidelines, and the result was always somewhere between 3 to 4 hits-to-a-kill. I was inquiring as to how well does W scale under 'normal' rules to get some perspective.P.d0t posted:You can also convert attack rolls to 1d20+1d8+lvl And this can replace half-level + expertise feats, etc etc?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
That basically lines up with the MM3 math, and some goon previously proffered that 5+lvl for PCs should cover half-level, ENH, feat, prof, and ability mod, IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 10:00
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:That's what I was saying: I did compare the average damage from these die expressions against the HP levels of a monster constructed from the MM3-on-a-business-card guidelines, and the result was always somewhere between 3 to 4 hits-to-a-kill. I was inquiring as to how well does W scale under 'normal' rules to get some perspective. I don't think the normal rules scale quite as well. MM3 math assumes PC damage goes up about 2 points of DPR each level. If you look at it from enough distance that might be true. I'm sure level 30s can pull off 70 points of DPR. But I don't think most of that growth in DPR comes in smoothly. It seems like its a lot of levels of nothing or +1 and then a sudden +5, followed by more nothing. More importantly, its harder for characters to do that level of damage using their at-wills, or without using combos of feats, items, encounters and dailies. So that level of damage isn't very consistent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
What's the mathematical progression of monster damage versus player HP? Is there an established monster-hits-before-player-hits-0-HP ratio? I need it for uh, research. EDIT: Disregard, found it. Blog of Holding says 4 hits to kill applies to both players vs monsters as well as monsters vs players. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 05:24 on Feb 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
Awww gently caress i was working on this big effort post. tl;dr people with high AC and HP are harder to kill.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:What's the mathematical progression of monster damage versus player HP? Is there an established monster-hits-before-player-hits-0-HP ratio? I need it for uh, research. Just keep this followup in mind. Four hits to kill an equal level character is how it works at 1st level, but it becomes increasingly less true as you level up. Whether or not that is a good idea is another matter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Okay, brainstorm on spaceships based on thread input- I really like the idea of collections of modules, with each one getting a bonus based on whether it's crewed (and by class/level of the crew). Fighters probably still end up needing at least engines, a weapon or two, and shields, which means the Pilot will have to leave some of them uncrewed and swap his bonus from one to another during his turn. Which means station-swapping should be a in-turn resource crews need to manage. Cruiser-level combat seems like the sweet spot for PCs all being on the same ship's crew - maybe with a small complement of redshirts to fill things out. If you include boarding action, then the PCs are encouraged to disable just enough modules to be able to board the enemy cruiser, and unlike boarding between capital ships, they can actually expect to incapacitate the whole enemy crew at the cruiser level. Have you played FTL at all? - - - - - Also, for your commander class, isn't there a Shaman build that's focused on ranged combat and directing fire? Speleothing fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
I know this has been discussed a bit in other places, but I wanted to know what (if any) solutions people had come up for for this, from a design perspective: Utility Powers One big criticism was that combat and non-combat powers were fighting over the same design space in this category and it kinda became lopsided. So, what's the solution? Do you give all utility powers a combat AND non-combat application? Or do you just silo the things off and have 2 sets of resources? Scrap the whole thing and replace it with something else...?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
I think noncombat utilities should be scrapped entirely, along with skills and noncombat and nonmagical utility items. That entire aspect of play should have a much more generalized and siloed approach, based on something like backgrounds and the players' and GM's collective genre expectations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
Perhaps non-combat utility powers could be replaced entirely by skills? You said you were considering granting explicit powers at various skill levels anyway. Although, I can see an argument for certain classes to gain unique skill applications... (perhaps obtainable by other classes via feat?)
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 07:42
|
|
|
Do whatever, as long as you keep ruinous phrase. Aka: the best way to enter every room.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
I like the idea of utility powers, I just think figuring out the balance on them will be tricky. I haven't quite figured out where to silo them- there are some that make more sense to be bound up with a character's background (like the ones that aid thievery and bluffing), while others are part of a class' abilities (for healers, etc.).
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 08:23
|
|
|
wallawallawingwang posted:I don't think the normal rules scale quite as well. MM3 math assumes PC damage goes up about 2 points of DPR each level. If you look at it from enough distance that might be true. I'm sure level 30s can pull off 70 points of DPR. But I don't think most of that growth in DPR comes in smoothly. It seems like its a lot of levels of nothing or +1 and then a sudden +5, followed by more nothing. More importantly, its harder for characters to do that level of damage using their at-wills, or without using combos of feats, items, encounters and dailies. So that level of damage isn't very consistent. There's a very specific pause in the page 42 damage table and its DMG 2 equivalent- without it the rise in, say multiple target damage (Low) is about .5 per level, but there's a line in the chart (in different places per type which is annoying) where it doesn't go up at all. I'm wondering why that pause is there. It'd be great to have something like that chart but not just copy-pasting it, which is tough since I'm trying to use mostly the same math.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
If I wanted to run the original Ravenloft module, but in 4e for some of my friends over Spring Break, how doable would that be and has any good work been done in adopting it? EDIT: Wrong thread! Moriatti fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Mar 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
I've been mulling over a kind of a lite 4e clone based heavily on Microlite20. I've read the various Microlite20 based 4e clones, but they somehow leave me wanting. I'm also drawing heavily from Perils & Polyhedrals, a neat little Microlite20 variant with some ideas from 4e as well. For an example, one of the recent ones I read had the three stats of Microlite20 (being Body, Dexterity and Mind) and for some unfathomable reason used both the ability score and modifier. These same stats were also used to derive other stats with different names (for an example, Fortitude Defense being derived from Body) when using unified vocabulary would do. So, here are my tentative ideas for this Microlite4e clone:
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 10:25
|
|
|
Could work, but you're keeping stats and so I'm tuning out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 10:39
|
|
|
starkebn posted:Could work, but you're keeping stats and so I'm tuning out. Yeah, that's another thing: throughout this process I kept thinking whether I even should keep stats as a thing in this at all. I should probably look at other people DTAS projects to see if I can marry some of the ideas from those to this project of mine. I'm not 100% dedicated to the idea of stats, the main point being to make an ultralite but still distinctly 4e-influenced game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 10:59
|
|
|
You don't necessarily need to completely drop attribute scores, you just need to avoid the situation where a Fighter needs to get STR and then that hurts his ability to be a stealthy dude if he wants to, as well as the situation where a Fighter is always locked into +3 Physical for their skills. In that sense, I'd play it like this: * A character gets to choose which of their attributes is used as a modifier to their attack rolls and damage rolls. It can be anything, provided that the character shouldn't be able to change it on a whim * A character gets to choose which of their five Microlite skills gets a +3 "class" bonus. It can be anything, again provided that it's supposed to be a locked-in decision There was already a Microlite4e attempt previously made; it should be part of the ML20 compilation- the thing it really lacked (and is arguably the biggest hurdle of any 4e retroclone that doesn't branch off into its own completely) was a rewrite of the class powers to the new system. In that sense I would consider the Class Compendium to be a good starting point to get a full set of powers for playable characters. Weaponmaster Fighter Templar Cleric Scoundrel Rogue Arcanist Wizard Marshal Warlord* * because I consider it nigh-unforgivable for a 4e retroclone to not have the most iconic class of 4e
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
The problem I have with stats is that if you're a particular class then you should have particular stats - so they add no differentiation at all, so are really pointless. Just remove stats and change the numbers so the maths is right I say.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
Well yes, full DTAS would be "you are always this accurate and your attacks always hit this hard, justify it however you wish" and then your "class-based" skill bonus would be a +3 in whatever you wanted, divorced from whatever your class actually is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
Here's a question, are Races really all that important to how a character plays? I mean, they're considered one of the three pillars to make up a character, but really, what they give from a gameplay perspective is: 1) a stat boost to certain attributes (useless in DTAS systems, pigeonholes races into certain classes, could be completely ignore by rolling the stat bonuses into the classes) 2) a vague series of skill bonuses (which is probably the first thing most people would get rid of in 4e, since it's a throwback design with little value) 3) a power (sometimes) 4) a variety of vague bonuses that mean very little (the dwarf gets pushed less. the tiefling has fire resist. the dragonborn hits harder when bloodied.) Am I wrong in thinking that you could probably do away with a lot of this? it basically boils down to 'I'm Eladrin, I have a teleport.' Also racial feats, but that's a different kettle of fish.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
Last night, while having 4e chat after a 4e game, I sort of came with an idea. I don't really have the time to expand on it, at the moment, but I'd thought I'd mention it. Somewhat, it's me saying "screw randomness" since -- harking back to an unrelated conversation a year ago about Chess -- strategy and total randomness don't really mix well. I've never played amber diceless or any diceless game, but my idea basically revolves around static target numbers and pools of points: pre:Points: Characters in Souls receive five pools of points. These points are used to increase their competency with actions or add effects.
Skill points: Can be used on a skill check and refresh per scene.
Round Points: Can be used on attack checks or -- at the cost of all round points -- use a healing surge and refresh per round.
Encounter Points: Can be used on attack checks, to add up to X damage, to add encounter effects, and refresh per scene.
Daily Points: Can be used on attack checks, to add damage, to add daily effects, and refresh per day.
Action Points: Can be used to gain an extra standard action and refreshes per day. Limited once per round.The effects are broken down into encounter and daily effects and are bought by their corresponding points. So, you get a list of encounter and daily effects -- some you start with, some you buy with XP -- and you can add them to checks with their corresponding points. Each would have its own cost. Instead of skills, I borrowed an idea from a friend where you mix backgrounds and skills: pre:Backgrounds: Character pick X background at character generation. This background starts at a value of +1. Each background gives a list of skills. Skills: Players receive a list of skills from their background. They may distribute X points among these skills. (Background + Skill) / Attack Value + Points vs Target Number What makes it a 4e retroclone would be the fact it would use 4e's tactical combat system, but iterated upon. After all, this change in core mechanics requires a change in math and I might import some ideas from other systems. Speaking from importing from systems, I'm thinking of adapting the Icon system from 13th Age or something similar. Something to tie them into the setting. It might be relationships or it could be things like actually having holds and keeps like in older games. Does any of this sound like a good idea?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:Yeah, that's another thing: throughout this process I kept thinking whether I even should keep stats as a thing in this at all. I should probably look at other people DTAS projects to see if I can marry some of the ideas from those to this project of mine. I'm not 100% dedicated to the idea of stats, the main point being to make an ultralite but still distinctly 4e-influenced game. I know you've stated previously (in this thread, I think?) that you and I had similar ideas for skills and stuff. Take a look at what I've come up with; maybe we can bounce some ideas off each other. Basically, I like the idea of flat target numbers (instead of scaling attack/defense and skills/DCs) stapled to "you're good at this skill because your class would be" (by using Advantage) rather than having ability scores cocking up either skills or combat or both.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Torchlighter posted:Here's a question, are Races really all that important to how a character plays? You could probably keep 3) and 4), and one of the Microlite versions I've seen (5e maybe?) had the racial bonuses boiled down in this way, which made it so that was what really set the races apart. The floating stat/skill bonuses (assuming you'd even keep that sort of math in your clone) could easily be stapled onto backgrounds or rolled into the usual point-buy or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Covok posted:Instead of skills, I borrowed an idea from a friend where you mix backgrounds and skills: I sort of like the idea of grouping skills into lists, which seems like something you're angling towards with this. Like, 4e seems to give Athletics, Endurance, Intimidate, and Heal to any sort of fightymans class skills (but of course ability score demands tend to dictate which ones you'll actually train) And, each power source has sort of a signature skill (Arcane = Arcana, Divine = Religion, Primal = Nature) Charisma seems to be its own skill group; you probably will have Insight on your list if you're supposed to be The Face, too. Is this kinda in line with what you're thinking? P.d0t fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Mar 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Torchlighter posted:Here's a question, are Races really all that important to how a character plays? I've been thinking about this exact thing recently. And like above, I definitely think 1 & 2 can go without any drama. I was thinking of either paring it down to just racial powers, or going even further and making race purely cosmetic and letting people take whatever racial powers they want from the whole list and just explaining it however they wish.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
Anyone still working on clones?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 09:26
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Anyone still working on clones? Does "always thinking about it, but never writing things down" count?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:03 |
|
|
Have been distracted by a couple of other projects. The focus has been on powers, and for a while it has been a struggle to get away from just rephrasing 4e powers in my own words. Actually creating new stuff is trickier. The Guard/Fighter I'll probably have to totally redo, the Rogue and Warlord/Commander I managed to get slightly away from that, but the Duellist- which I based on the Ranger but am making into a more "Flash Gordon swashbuckler" type- has potential (I've already given it a bit of forced movement so it can separate a target from the pack and whittle them down- the idea is the Rogue is all about sneaking up on you from the back and the Duellist is all up front and have-at-you.) But yeah it's a big project.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 22:48
|
|