Retrocloning 4e: Shouting hands back on

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > Retrocloning 4e: Shouting hands back on

homullus: Mar 27, 2009

Gizmoduck_5000 posted:

Lately I've been playing a lot of final fantasy games, and I've been enamored with the job system in FFV, FFT and FF Dimensions, wherein you master one job (i.e. Warrior, White Mage, Dragoon) and then transfer the abilities onto your next job.

I've been pondering ways to represent this in a tabletop game. Sure, the ala' carte multi-classing of D&D 3 and 5 are similar in concept, but switching from one class to another in D&D means losing out in one or the other. I want something where you can finish out one class, gaining all abilities therein, and then another and then another. I started looking at WotC's Gamma World (7E) and the structure of origins as a model for short term classes that have maybe 3-5 levels each.

I'm thinking of simplifying the classic six ability scores down to Strength, Agility, Intellect, and Will each with a corresponding defense (Fortitude, Reflex, Perception, Resolve) which equals STAT + 10. Bonus progression is either by level, or by Job. If the latter, balance the game math toward the middle so that mid-range bonuses hit high targets at least 50% of the time.

Things like your Cure, Cura, Esuna, Fira and such are encounter powers, while limit breaks take the place of dailies. Utilities are there too. I think I might use something like 13A's combat maneuvers for martial powers, instead of the AEDU format of 4E just to shake it up a little.

Not sure what to do about races. Maybe just a cosmetic consideration, our they get Job entries of their own.

The part I'm stuck on is deciding how many levels I want the game to be. I like the idea of a relatively short game, about 10-12 levels, but I could see extending it to 20 just because people like round numbers better.

The other part I'm stuck on is how powers should scale. I could scale it by overall character level, so the Thunder spell you took at heroic tier automatically becomes more powerful by epic tier and characters don't lose anything by swinging from magic to martial and back. Or I could do it by class, so White Mage gives you Cure at heroic, White Wizard gives you Cura at paragon and Seer gives you Curaga at Epic.

Sorry for all the Final Fantasy terminology for those unfamiliar with the games.

You're probably better off with Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 3E, since that actually used something like the job system. You have careers, and if you finish them, you get one ability from it permanently that you carry over into the next career. A small number of careers are restricted to certain races.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2015 15:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 11:22

homullus: Mar 27, 2009

P.d0t posted:

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.

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

homullus: Mar 27, 2009

P.d0t posted:

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?

People love vampires (you probably know what they do, and just need to decide what subset of that is appropriate for your game) and werewolves (whose central aspect is voluntary/involuntary transformation). Shapeshifters/changelings/doppelgangers are popular. Dragonmans too.

# ¿ Apr 24, 2016 17:39

homullus: Mar 27, 2009

P.d0t posted:

but like, what do they do?

You played 4e, and all those things were in 4e, so you know what they did in 4e, and people generally liked those (yes, I know, vampire). Are you asking us to design them for you?

# ¿ Apr 25, 2016 00:57

homullus: Mar 27, 2009

P.d0t posted:

So in TNP, skill ratings (if you will) are basically:

"untrained": 1d20 (unmodified)

expertise: 1d20 (treat 1s as 20s)

proficient: 1d20+1d6

trained / proficient+expertise (kinda used interchangeably): 1d20+1d10 / 1d20+1d6 (treat 1s as 20s + treat 1s as 6s, respectively)

trained+expertise (used rarely): 1d20+1d10 (treat 1s as 20s + treat 1s as 10s, respectively)

I was mulling ways to simplify/unify this; would using just d20s + Advantage be better?
i.e.:

"untrained": 1d20 (unmodified)

expertise: 1d20 (treat 1s as 20s)

trained: 2d20k1

trained+expertise: 2d20k1 (treat 1s as 20s)

Here's what the math looks like.
Basically, having the d6 and d10 options adds a few grades with smaller jumps in between each different bonus, but it's clunky in that it's dissociated from the core mechanics of "d20 + Class Die"

Consider instead looking at how often characters will be succeeding in their core tasks and asking yourself "is this how I want this system to feel"? Like, I don't think it matters that much whether, in a game system, players generally succeed on 11-20 vs 12-20, but in that scenario, they're all using the same dice. If the way you have it structured (with class dice for skills, or without) means that wizards are worse (or better) than clerics at "doing their jobs," then you might have a problem.

# ¿ May 9, 2016 20:04

homullus: Mar 27, 2009

P.d0t posted:

Naw I got rid of that problem, by ditching ability scores (mostly) and breaking skills into "Adventuring" (mechanical) and "Background" (fluff) skills. It made it easier to assign skills to classes along thematic lines, and also ensure some level of parity between classes.

I guess my question is, how often should you succeed at "your job"? IIRC in 4e it was like 75%, no? (barring hyperbolic char-op, of course)
I think it's safe to safe that a rate of 90%+ mostly defeats the purpose of rolling..

What does expertise/proficiency mean?

If the game tells me that my skill roll is supposed to represent one of the top ones in the world, I expect the character to be able to do routine things with either no roll or a very low chance of failure. Likewise, there are pools of expertise out there in the player world, so telling them that somebody can do [hard thing] with [small amount of training] will set people to typing furiously at the internet. Beyond those extremes, I don't think it matters.

# ¿ May 9, 2016 20:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 11:22

homullus: Mar 27, 2009

P.d0t posted:

Well, they're both purely mechanical. I could probably write more words into the text explaining what "Skill Expertise" represents in-universe, but basically it's a mechanic by which the floor on your skill results is raised; Rogues and Bards get the broadest applications of it, as you might expect.

I should have added more words of my own, because this is what I meant. Should I succeed 67.5% of the time at a skill? Well, I think that depends on whether that 67.5% chance represents the peak of human activity, the untrained ability of a guy on the street, or somewhere in the middle. 67.5% chance to succeed isn't good or bad per se.

# ¿ May 9, 2016 21:16

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > Retrocloning 4e: Shouting hands back on