|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 06:48 |
|
|
Oops, shared it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
It's worth noting two things: big perks are worth lots of dice. 1[W]+Stun for a round is an excellent E13 for the hammer-using Fighter. And unless it's fixed in a putative retclone, 3x1[W] >>>>>>> 1x3[W] in terms of damage. Die size is nearly irrelevant after mid-heroic.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
On the contrary, ongoing damage shouldn't really be worth much at all. If the party is being tactically optimal, things will die before they take it, and even if not, it's relatively unlikely to have much impact unless it's of MASSIVE size or the monster has vulnerabilities.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
Doing 'I have to hit before you can hit' where the first hit does nothing is tough to balance. Staggering Note is probably the worst enabling at-will for a reason. Look at Direct the Strike.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
If I were redesigning it I'd look at making Direct the Strike just be 'an ally within 5 of you makes a basic attack' or 'an ally makes a basic attack against an enemy within 5' - I always find the multiple ranges on it confusing to remember which is which, and they rarely matter enough to bother with. Take one of them away entirely, and balance the range with the fact that it's not giving any buffs by default.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
There aren't really any. Plenty of 'ignore cover' which could be fluffed as destroying it, but systematised destruction of cover in an attack power isn't something 4e ever did TTBOMK.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Check out how Longtooth Shifters work. That's basically what you're looking for.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
My general thought with scores is either 'kill them entirely for combat stats, use a fixed progression for attacks and defences' or 'all attacks use highest ability score to hit, second highest for secondary effects' then keep them for skills. The problem with that being you're still heavily pushed to have at least two high scores.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2015 09:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 06:48 |
|
|
Basically, the way to overall fix 4e's damage scaling had a lot of debate, but for me the most satisfying was 'only apply damage bonuses once per action' - so Twin Strike would be 2 attack rolls, one gets 1[w], one gets the damage bonuses. Then you can split them or not at your discretion. But really, if I was fixing 4e with a complete rebuild, I'd probably cull rolled damage altogether. It slows the game down and complicates the rules writing to very little benefit overall.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2015 17:26
|
|