|
neonchameleon posted:And I must get back to Trifold - but I also have in my head the seeds of Microlite 4e - which starts by taking my Trifold, using only d6s, and removing damage rolls (and dividing hp by approximately 4). Character sheets cover only one side of a page of A4 this time. Would this interest anyone? I am a huge fan of microlite type games and a big (conceptual) fan of 4E, so yes, I think that'd be very interesting
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 22:30 |
|
|
quote:A starting PC either has one skill at +1, four at 0, and one at -1, or two at +1, one at 0, and three at -1. At each level they may raise one skill by +1 - but each skill may be only raised once for every five levels the PC has (round up). You might want to split this up into a bulleted list or something for clarity: * One skill at +1, four skills at 0, one skill at -1 * Two skills at +1, one skill at 0, three skills at -1 quote:Down: (normally due to 0HP)You can do nothing This might scan better as "you cannot do anything" === Besides that I like it - simplifying it down to d6 and especially boiling down a lot of effects to Mezzed is pretty cool. Eagerly awaiting the rest.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
I like 4E a lot on a conceptual level, and of course being that TG likes it a lot as well, but I've never actually run it because my god the feats are really intimidating. I took a dive into its math recently and understood what "items are essential" was: Monster attack and defense gets +1 every level, but players only get +0.5 every level, meaning you need to use a combination of your primary attribute modifier and items and the Weapon/Implement Expertise and Paragon/Robust Defense feats just to keep up (60-65% hit chance vs monsters, 40% chance to be hit by monsters). With that in mind, would some really broad changes help? 1. Instead of a "half-level bonus", give the player a whole level bonus, same as the monsters, straight up. This lets you get rid of the item treadmill and (most of) the feat taxes and focus more on items that just do cool stuff. Players will actually start pulling ahead since their primary attribute bonus will go from +3/4 to +5/6 over the course of the game, but this is easy enough to handle via some other method. 2. Combat taking too long: This is more just good DMing practice rather than an actual rule, but as far as I know 4E doesn't have a BECMI-type morale system, but even Next has it. The first time a monster dies, everyone in the group has to save or flee/surrender/just-be-defeated; when the nominal leader of the encounter is killed, another save for everyone; when more than half of the encounter has been killed, another save for everyone. Adjust the save difficulty (and frequency) up or down to fit the narrative. In a more general sense, just don't run the combat up to the very end once it's clear that one side has won. 3. Cap the number of powers a player can wield at any one time, but let them freely swap in out and of it, say between Long Rests, or even Short Rests. Granted, my inexperience with the system means I don't know what might be a good number to stop at, but 2 at-wills, and 3 each of encounter, daily and utility as of level 10. Gaining more levels will widen your selection, but you need to "equip" it before "leaving town" to be able to use it. Anyone who thinks this is too "videogamey" probably wasn't going to get on board with 4E in the first place. I guess my next question would be if I'm playing too much "armchair designer" by throwing out all of these without playing the system, and that I should just buck up, expect that the players will get it, and play the game as is before trying to "fix" it. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Dec 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Transient People posted:Point 1's solution is good but 'players hit more as they level' doesn't need fixing, since it shortens combats. Point 2 doesn't really jive with 4e because it riffs on the oldschool D&D line of 'combat is a penalty' as opposed to 'combat is fun', and the actual solution is to add ways to insert tension into fights beyond round 1 or 2 by adding more recovery methods for powers on the PC side and twist buttons for the GM (a redesigned variant of Fortune Cards is a good start for this. Not perfect but they could have been good if they hadn't been shameless cash grabs). Point 3 is like whatever and personal preference. But yes, play 4e. It is a Good Game. Thanks for the input, really. And yeah, I'm definitely going to give it a shot. quote:Attacks I really like this. All of yesterday I kept turning over an idea in my head that "if all the math in the game supports a 60% hit rate, why not just do away with attack/AC and just give the player a hit every time they roll a 9 or better?" because yeah it makes so that you can run a combat without even really needing to write anything down if you don't get too fancy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
Yup, I wasn't talking about keeping hit rates completely static forever; bonuses are good, but only if they actually matter.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
I've thought for a while now that the problem with Essentials was that the predetermined power selection wasn't actually that good (see: Slayer) and that you still had to do Feats yourself. A well-written pseudo-PHB that has well-picked locked-in powers and locked-in feats would be a big deal. Going the full Pathfinder would be something like rules to get of the item treadmill completely.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
With regards to armor, I recall Dagger for Kids as a D&D retroclone that basically cut through all the BS and just gave the Fighter AC 2 because that's what you're essentially heading towards anyway.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Some fan actually did a "4e Modern"
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
The general argument against facing rules is that a single combat round lasts long enough (and the characters involved are assumed to be competent enough at fighting) that a character would always be able to react to someone approaching them from the side or rear. Flanking rules are a thing because the only way you're not going to be able to defend your backside would be if there are two different attackers (from opposite sides) occupying your attention. They're acceptable if you're playing GURPS with 1-second combat rounds, but otherwise facing rules in something like 3.5e fell into this weird gulf of simulationism where you'd only get your Shield AC bonus if you were being attacked from the side where you held your shield on, which makes your character feel more like a slow, lumbering BattleMech than anything else.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Lizard regeneration? That's more real-time. Groot's ability to come back as a sapling reminds me more of a Phoenix's reincarnation.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:If you're not already familiar with "MM3 on a business card" from Blog of Holding, google that post-haste. This was from a while back, but if 1d6+1d10+level is supposed to replace [W] in the heroic tier, what about caster classes with flat damage dice amounts? Would I continue using that same expression, read the power by-the-book such as 1d10+INT for Ray of Enfeeblement, or something else?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 13:44
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:The way the "MM3 on a card" expresses monster "average damage" is like 8+level (if I recall correctly.) So all that means is they take the average of a die roll (say, 3.5 on 1d6) round it off, add a number to it til it becomes "8" and then add the monster level to it. That's how much damage a monster will do on like, an at-will. If it was meant to replace it for monsters than I fundamentally misunderstood what you meant and my question is moot. I thought that was a way to break down a player-character's damage into a single always-scaling-correctly number the way [1d20+1d8+level] can be a player's attack roll replacing ability modifier, inherent bonus, proficiency, weapon enhancement, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
Not specific to 4e, but I've done that insofar as "yes Bob, you as a Wizard can roll d20+INT to shoot an arcane bolt for 1d6 damage" when we were really supposed to be playing B/X but I didn't want to deal with Vancian casting
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Okay, thanks for validating my assumptions. That should work.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 22:30 |
|
|
Maxwell Lord, I just want to say that though I don't really post in this thread much, I do enjoy your constant, relentless updates and appreciate the work you're doing. Cheers! I think you've also found another solution to the "DTAS problem" in that keeping stats is actually cool and good if there is a real choice behind them rather than an utterly predictable mathematical progression with only one correct answer. Certainly I wouldn't be opposed to still having stats if they still mattered in the way you described your system.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2016 04:29
|
|