'Buildable power' format? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

'Buildable power' format?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
Rerednaw
Jul 25, 2010 12:34:30 I wonder if Essentials will re-introduce some concepts that 1st and 2nd edition Basic played around with but now with 4th edition mechanics as an option.

For example every class now has some combination/variety of:

Melee based attacks.
Ranged based attacks.
Buffs
Debuffs
Status effects
Heals
Other (things that don't really fit in the above categories.)

What if there were guidelines like:

Attack power
Base power damage: 1d8.
Define power source (martial, primal, arcane, divine, etc...)
Define role (if striker +1 die shift = d8 becomes d10, if controller -1 die shift = d8 becomes d6)

Modifiers:
========
Base attack type (no other modifers allowed, shift die type +1)
Add range (shift die type -1)
Add area of effect (shift die type -1)
Increased area of effect (?)
Add status effect (minor, major, severe) + duration. (no shift if controller, -1 shift if semi-controller class or -2 shifts if non-controller class)
Effect based on primary or secondary stat.
Effect is flat value.

Each of these modifiers would have to be balanced out by limits or a reduction in the damage die.

Obviously this would require major tweaking and playtest but it was just a thought.
#2
salla
Jul 25, 2010 14:12:47 I think, if people wanted that, they'd be playing HERO or Gurps instead of D&D.
#3
Tony_Vargas
Jul 26, 2010 2:55:39
Something like that would be nice for DMs, though. You might not want to let your players custom-design all their characters' powers, but having a good idea what constitutes a 'balanced' power of a given type for a given role and level would be nice. I suspect, though, that the classes have been designed more by feel than formula.
#4
mellored
Jul 26, 2010 10:21:12 The knight sorta works like that.

MBA + a stance = at-will
#5
nnjguy
Jul 27, 2010 0:28:23 i personally would love that, i think the reason they dont do that is because then people would build their own new stuff too easily and not as many would buy books.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Rerednaw Jul 25, 2010 12:34:30	I wonder if Essentials will re-introduce some concepts that 1st and 2nd edition Basic played around with but now with 4th edition mechanics as an option. For example every class now has some combination/variety of: Melee based attacks. Ranged based attacks. Buffs Debuffs Status effects Heals Other (things that don't really fit in the above categories.) What if there were guidelines like: Attack power Base power damage: 1d8. Define power source (martial, primal, arcane, divine, etc...) Define role (if striker +1 die shift = d8 becomes d10, if controller -1 die shift = d8 becomes d6) Modifiers: ======== Base attack type (no other modifers allowed, shift die type +1) Add range (shift die type -1) Add area of effect (shift die type -1) Increased area of effect (?) Add status effect (minor, major, severe) + duration. (no shift if controller, -1 shift if semi-controller class or -2 shifts if non-controller class) Effect based on primary or secondary stat. Effect is flat value. Each of these modifiers would have to be balanced out by limits or a reduction in the damage die. Obviously this would require major tweaking and playtest but it was just a thought.
#2 salla Jul 25, 2010 14:12:47	I think, if people wanted that, they'd be playing HERO or Gurps instead of D&D.
#3 Tony_Vargas Jul 26, 2010 2:55:39	Something like that would be nice for DMs, though. You might not want to let your players custom-design all their characters' powers, but having a good idea what constitutes a 'balanced' power of a given type for a given role and level would be nice. I suspect, though, that the classes have been designed more by feel than formula.
#4 mellored Jul 26, 2010 10:21:12	The knight sorta works like that. MBA + a stance = at-will
#5 nnjguy Jul 27, 2010 0:28:23	i personally would love that, i think the reason they dont do that is because then people would build their own new stuff too easily and not as many would buy books.