Retrocloning 4e: Shouting hands back on

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

starkebn: May 18, 2004; "Oooh, got a little too serious. You okay there, little buddy?"

Could work, but you're keeping stats and so I'm tuning out.

# ¿ Mar 27, 2015 10:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 21:56

starkebn: May 18, 2004; "Oooh, got a little too serious. You okay there, little buddy?"

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

starkebn: May 18, 2004; "Oooh, got a little too serious. You okay there, little buddy?"

Torchlighter posted:

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.

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

starkebn: May 18, 2004; "Oooh, got a little too serious. You okay there, little buddy?"

P.d0t posted:

Anyone still working on clones?

Does "always thinking about it, but never writing things down" count?

# ¿ May 19, 2015 22:14

starkebn: May 18, 2004; "Oooh, got a little too serious. You okay there, little buddy?"

I'm thinking DTAS then add your full level to every roll, but then I am also thinking 2d6 instead of d20. Oh, and fixed damage expressions for every power.

PS. And dropping weapon damage for each weapon having it's own at-will or encounter

# ¿ Nov 1, 2015 02:42

starkebn: May 18, 2004; "Oooh, got a little too serious. You okay there, little buddy?"

wallawallawingwang posted:

What I don't like about this setup is:

Your ability score has a really big impact at level 1 but tapers off at higher levels.

drop attributes out of your combat math all together, keeping them only for skills etc if you can't get rid of them there. Just base your maths from the character level or tier.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2016 03:41

starkebn: May 18, 2004; "Oooh, got a little too serious. You okay there, little buddy?"

The way I look at it is this. If you must assume someone has maxed their prime stat then there is never any differentiation anyway. Every fighter of x type will have y stats. Every wizard can max INT and bam done. Every monk tries to get good stats and fails because they need too many.

I want my fighter to be the best because he's really fighty, not really strong. I can then describe him however I want.

Attributes don't actually add a thing because you have to build them a specific way depending on your class choice.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2016 23:52

starkebn: May 18, 2004; "Oooh, got a little too serious. You okay there, little buddy?"

Maybe it's nothing new to some, but I found the first 2-3 pages of this thread on RPG.net a fairly interesting attempt at dissecting the root design of 4e.

After those first few pages the "discussion" is only interesting if you want to read the same arguments about mundane fighters vs magical fighters that have been done ad nauseum. I can't stop myself from reading the whole thing every time

# ¿ Jun 23, 2016 14:33

starkebn: May 18, 2004; "Oooh, got a little too serious. You okay there, little buddy?"

P.d0t posted:

Crosspostin' this, since it probably belongs in here:

thanks, will have a look at it soon and try and give some feedback

# ¿ Oct 4, 2016 04:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 21:56

starkebn: May 18, 2004; "Oooh, got a little too serious. You okay there, little buddy?"

Sorry dude, I've only been able to get through it once but I don't think I'm cut out to give feedback on the system. It seems okay, I like the idea of being engaged in melee, how you're trying to use reach etc - but I just can't fake it that I know how it would work in play.

If you want feedback on the writing maybe I could be more helpful there, but only marginally.

# ¿ Oct 10, 2016 16:22

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