|
4e is a good RPG. Maybe not a perfect one. But it was a very well designed game, and one with (by industry standards) a huge audience. It's also a game both with a lot going for it and a lot that can be done - so retroclones can be a huge improvement. And I'm certain I'm not the only one with an ongoing retroclone (that was kicked into gear by the July contest). What does 4e offer and what does it need? Always nice to know what to keep and what to throw out. There is plenty of room for disagreement here. Advantages 4e is very well designed and transparent about what it does. Simplicity and clarity of rules. Forced movement makes for one of the best tactical and kinaesthetic experiences I've ever played. Monster creation is superb. And you can't copyright mechanics. Classes being very different in play Instruction manual level of clarity for finding things in the rulebook. The bad Feats. There were about 1500 of them last time I checked. Aaaggghhhhh!!!!!!! DDI. Not that DDI is a bad thing. But none of us can match that. H4ters. Combat takes too long. More to the point, Big Epic Combats take too long. The design and layout puts people off. It's like reading an instruction manual. Limited range of playstyles. Tight math meaning that items feel essential rather than like rewards (even in some cases if you use inherent bonusses). An only slightly modified d20 Skill/Ability system that pigeonholes characters. And that last needs an expansion. 4e character building is immensely flexible, especially with the superb balance 4e has. But all 4e characters are high tactical engagement with about the same rules weight. It's a good place to pitch. But some people don't like tactical combat and in combat Just Want To Smash Things. They were not catered to until Essentials. The pity about this is being able to make each class into a minigame is one of the strengths of a class based system. And I firmly believe that one of the reasons for the enduring popularity of D&D is because it allows the Just Smashys alongside the Combo Wizards - something 4e didn't. (Of course this doesn't mean all playstyles should be legal or desirable - we don't want Whizzards or God Wizards). Anything obvious I've missed? Send in the Clones My own 4th Trifold P. Dot and Error 404's Steakpunk neonchameleon fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Aug 3, 2014 |
#
¿
Aug 2, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 14:08 |
|
|
4th Trifold 4th Trifold is a direct attempt to keep all the good bits of 4e while ditching problems. If I'm retrocloning and there are obvious improvements to be made I certainly should make them. Part of the goal is to draw out and reinforce the simplicity of 4e; putting all the rules text onto trifolds both underlines the simplicity and provides a discipline that simultaneously keeps the bloat late 4e suffered from away and means that writing an entire class is a manageable chunk. Central Contents The Core Rules and the Fantasy Module are both on trifolds - naturally. Time spent looking things up in books: Negligable. And a couple of trifolds isn't too much to learn. There have been changes made. Popcorn Initiative to make combat faster, more tactical, and more dangerous. Hit Points renamed to Stun and using Recoveries rather than Healing Surges as a name. Both of which are to better reflect their role in the game. Some simplifying and changing of monster roles (they aren't quite the same as in 4e). Hex grid as default (because square fireballs are irritating). Skill Challenges aren't a part of 4th Trifold - but they are major inspiration for GM advice and tools (and I think the GM advice is a massive improvement over any version in D&D 4e - but I would think that). Also a quick combat resolution system which turns out to work both for irrelevant guards and real surprise attacks where you are trying to kill the dragon before it wakes up. Working out what the engine did well there's a rules module that is absolutely not in any way a Mass Effect hack But the core of what's been done in 4th Trifold are the classes. They all fit onto trifolds - so there isn't the 4E 8 Page Character Sheet, and they can be filled in quite literally in a couple of minutes. Ability scores died (no room, no point). And the weapon list got cut. But there is some flex in the classes. Fighter The fighter is one of the two shining gems of D&D 4e and is where I'm closest to the highlights of the source material. It's every bit as suited to the tactical players that loved them before - but at every step of the way there are simple and effective options you can choose to end up with someone who just hits things. Hard. Until they stop moving. Warlord The Warlord is the other shining gem. And I think I've turned it up to 11 by way of a lot of inspiration from Grim World's Battlemaster (and when my copy of 13 True Ways arrives I may go back over it and see what the Commander has to offer). The main target for this class was me - one of my all time favourite characters in 4e was my Bravura Warlord. There's also an option without any sort of recovery spending - some people don't like any form of martial healing, so why lock them out? Rogue Tricksy, agile, swashbuckly. The rogue is for people who like flair and flamboyance. And although the 4e rogue is good, the 4th Trifold Rogue owes a lot to both the 13th Age rogue and the 5e Rogue. Using their swift action for extra movement (one of my favourite things designing the rogue is the Parkour finesse that allows the rogue to leap, fall, land, pull themselves up by their fingertips, and otherwise almost force flamboyant movement when using it. (Not that flamboyance is essential - there are plenty of ways to keep quiet and use the brush pass and just slipping around slightly before bringing the dagger up between the ribs). I think it gives enough for people who want to creep around and never be seen doing anything. I'm not entirely sure. The Holy Warrior "Who's going to have to play the cleric?" - words I never want to hear in a game I've designed. I can't see much conceptual gap between Melee Cleric and Paladin of the same alignment. So why not make them the same class? And if we throw in the Blackguard we can have fall and redemption mechanics that are under the control of the player. Making Paladins fall is frequently terrible. But some players like playing that sort of arc, so encourage it. The other point of this class is that they get stronger as the situation gets worse - whether because they are more surrounded or because they are bloodied or have spent recoveries. I think it's hit its target players. The Innate Mage Some people just want to watch the world burn. Some people just want to control the weather. Some want to throw illusions around. And others just want to be one of the X-Men. This class is designed round high flash and magic but simple mechanics, and has really been a hit. I've already two people who want to play versions of it. The Archivist Wizard There are two types of people who want to play Vancian mages. People who want to be God, and people who want to explore, picking up weird spells, and finding really odd uses for them. And although the first type steals the game, there's nothing wrong with the second type at all. So why not create a class for them? After all that's what the class system is for. No free spells beyond some really pretty good cantrips, and otherwise strongly based on the AD&D Wizard. It is, however, a class that has impact on the setting even if the implied background has destroyed the orders of magic. Warlock By popular demand of one of my playtesters. I've added a lot of bite to the patrons I think - better descriptors and at least as much evocation of the pact themes. And some tricks to wrangle the other PCs into the Patron's clutches. Dark and twisted and with a lot of scope for style. Spirit Warrior People who want to play Barbarians (and this class also covers Wardens and Werewolves) want to be almost unstoppable rampaging forces of destruction. They don't want many mechanics to worry about - which is why the Spirit Warrior has no scene attack powers - they just get angry a lot and are very hard to put down and keep down. Pitched to the players. Ranger The bastard offspring of Legolas, Green Arrow, Hawkeye, and the Executioner Assassin. The Ranger really brings some specialties to an urban campaign (or they bring boxing glove arrows - and I'm not kidding there) but are extremely flexible and versatile with their bows, and are nature specialists. Anywhere from Green Arrow to hardened pro killers. There's a lot closer process mapping than in the 4e ranger - at least unless you take the option that lets the Ranger start throwing playing cards and cocktail sticks with lethal accuracy. To Come: Summoners Going to be fiddly - but kept lean. Summoners get to have friends and share actions. Because I'm breaking things by class, Summoners get half strength combat actions with their summons being worth the other half. Something you can't do if you're trying to fake universal mechanics, which is why all the 4e and PF Summoner types have been either broken or struggling. Classes can and should be built as mini-games in their own right. Monks The Monk is the rogue's cousin (and has been since the days of 1e). Self sufficient, using the same sort of Wirework Sfx the rogue gets, and getting behind the enemy lines and messing them about. 4e is the only version of D&D ever to have decent Monks - but I can't fit the 4e approach on a trifold. Which is a pity. So I'm just going to have to have a different style of character who can effectively fly and walk across rice paper. Vessels The Vessel is covering two contradictory archetypes. The Bringer of Divine Fire and the near-pacifist healer cleric. Its mechanical hooks include overchanneling - sacrificing their own Healing Surges for increased power and nosebleeds when they cast spells. And like the Holy Warrior, the worse things look the more dangerous they get. Absolutely more burnination power than the Innate Pyromancer - but the Pyromancer doesn't normally burn themselves. Vampires The 4e Vampire was a good idea that didn't quite work. Let's try it again. Complete with the Hammer Horror Camping Up Bard Another request (not that I'd let Bards not be represented - Vicious Mockery is too much fun. And I've gone back to the drawing board and deleted the Cold and Broken Bard (who had all their feat names taken from Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah) Bestiary Rock Ridge Bandits - L 1-3 Burning Zombies - Template neonchameleon fucked around with this message at 12:43 on Aug 22, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Under the bad side of things you should probably put bad math. I think most people have a fairly good understanding of why but I'll write a little capsule explanation. Updated, thanks. (And I should mention that 4th Trifold bans enhancement and item bonusses and PC to hit and AC scales by level).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
Asymmetrikon posted:See, I would have said that this was probably the greatest feature of 4e. It understood that it was a manual for a game, and didn't try to muddle its rules text by inserting flavor sentences like older editions did; it was very visually well put together - especially the power blocks, which are probably one of the best innovations it brought to D&D. If there was anything I'd want to see in a 4e clone, it's 4e's layout and sensical composition. The strength there comes under clarity in my opinion. That it's very easy to work out what things in 4e do and to know where to find them. Effectronica posted:I'm going to doublepost and tear apart the skill system at length. Reason #4 to say Death To Ability Scores! (Which I've done and gladly with 4th Trifold). The 4e version of the d20 skill system takes out the obviously terrible parts of 3.5's - but keeps at least some of the structural weaknesses. quote:People have argued, in my view convincingly, that the thing which doomed the fighter was the introduction of the Thief with unique "skills" and the ensuing belief that skills had to be defined or else you didn't have them. This isn't so at all. Unless I've miscounted the 4th Trifold Fighter is overall more skillful than the 4th Trifold Rogue (indeed the two most skilled classes are the Fighter and the Warlord). But the Rogue can take an option that lets them pick pockets as a minor action. quote:That is interesting but irrelevant to the core problem. It's not so much the math (although the suggested way to have epic-level challenges is something that falls apart for many skills within the base game and really is just a Red Queen's Race without significant work on the part of the DM) as it is the core concept. 4e's skills, on an abstract level, are gatekeepers and not keys. They serve as passive barriers to be unlocked rather than tools to solve problems. This is really the problem with skill challenges as well: they are just a string of gates you have to unlock in a row. That depends how skill challenges are used. I've for a long time been saying that skill challenges are an attempt to bottle lightning and tried to get to the heart of how they are useful (including as partial success mechanics) with Trifold 4e. quote:How to fix this? Not without (partly) undoing unified resolution if we want to keep something that's basically 4e. What's necessary is removing pass-fail resolution (which already has been partially removed from 4e's combat system) and replacing difficulty class with a system where your numbers let you do things. This is something 4e already has - it just loads it onto the Powers system rather than the Skill system. The Power Deft Hands, for example, allows you to take a Thievery check as a minor action. In other words you can walk through a crowd and lift someone's wallet and walk on without breaking step. A brush pass and the wallet's yours. Now the chance of success at picking pockets is exactly the same, but anyone else would have to pick pockets as a standard action. Alternatively see the Thief's Acrobat's Trick (Climb Speed) or whatever the Monk's wirework flight ability is.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
Next piece of my retroclone up - the first part of a bestiary. I've gone for a Nentir-vale like approach - but would like feedback as to whether other people think it works as an approach that will really help GMs?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:I think the 4E trifold is pretty neat but I have to admit I find square grids simpler and more convenient from a perspective of "whip up a quick map on a whiteboard," and also I don't mind square fireballs possibly due to some inherent moral degeneracy. How much work do you figure it would be to convert over to gridded measurements? Is it just as simple as saying "squares, go" or do bursts/blasts have to be refigured in some fashion? No problem at all if you are at all used to 4e - the only question I can think of is whether you want to turn cones into 1/2/3 cones or back into blasts. @thespaceinvader, I don't have permission to access that?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
I'm still trying to figure my bestiary out - but am working on the basis that a bestiary should be adventure seeds more than anything else. So last part was the Rock Ridge Bandits for the orthodox bestiary monsters - but I've just added a Bestiary Template (inspired by War of the Burning Sky). Burning zombies. How well does this approach work for people?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Seems pretty good, just make sure to do the math and stuff. I'm actually working the other way. The monsters work using math that close enough to MM3 on a business card that you can actually use MV (and MM3, DSCG, and MV:NV). The static damage of +level/2 is getting close to an optimised character who per tier gets +2 enhancement bonus, +2 item bonus, +1 feat bonus, and +1 to their primary stat (a couple of classes have static of +level/3 or even +level/4).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
And I've continued branching out and working out what the core engine does well. This is absolutely not in any way a Mass Effect hack. Cover based shooters work well with detailed positional games. And here's an essay on different playstyles that work.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2014 12:42
|
|
|
I've been unhappy with D&D races since ... forever. But am wondering if borrowing an approach from AW:TDA is too distant from base 4e. Anyway, updated version with new approach to races/cultures - comments please? Including whether it's 4e enough.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
The problem with the cost for Rituals isn't that they are too high or too low. It's that the cost starts out as extortion and becomes pocket change at higher levels and the rituals themselves become spammable. With 4e's exponential gold standard there is literally no way I can see to balance rituals using gold as a cost. 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?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Accidentally posted this in the general 4th thread, I'm getting good feedback there but I'm curious as to what you guys all think: Depends how important you want weapons to be. I'd definitely give pro-wrestlers a bonus to improvised weapons so they are only just weaker than edged weapons if I didn't abolish weapon stats entirely.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
I've got the core of the microlite 4e rules written but with minimal formatting. Next I need a couple of character sheets I think.
neonchameleon fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Nov 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
Covok posted:You may wish to clean up that coding a bit. Fixed, thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
megane posted:When I ran Exalted, which has skills and stats decoupled like that, I gave them a standing challenge to find a way to roll Strength + Bureaucracy. "We know the forms you want are in cabinet 3b. Right in the far corner of this room." Open the door to the room and get buried in paper.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
bbcisdabomb posted:Hey neonchameleon, I was going to print out your Trifold rules but the last line of Presence overflows onto the next page, screwing your fomatting up. I got around it by deleting the last line, but you might want to take a look at that. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
wallawallawingwang posted:I just finished up with grad school, so I can switch my rpg tinkering from thing I do to procrastinate to normal person hobby. So, sorta? It's basically what I did with Trifold 4e. Cut the rules down only slightly. Cut character creation for all the new classes - but you can run old and new at the same table at the same time. And you get to keep all the monster manuals (MM3, MV, and MV: Threats). And I must put up the Not!Mass Effect rules.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 14:08 |
|
|
Iny posted:"Roll twice to hit; if both attack rolls succeed, this attack does 2[W]"? This. The problem with Twin Strike is that the static modifiers scale twice as fast as they should. Cut it to once only and there's little problem.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2015 13:21
|
|