1. Add a "non-combat skill" section which has it's own number of skills to train that you can't use for combat skills. Make these skills that promote and encourage roleplaying -- knowledge skills, profession skills, dwarven mating rituals, cooking, music performance (unrelated to bardic effects), singing, dwarf tossing, etc.
2. Add a set of "reverse-feats" or disadvantages which promote roleplaying by introducing "defects" in the character -- fear of spiders, fear of 3.5e vs. 4e threads, fear of the dark, delusion that the world is hollow and he's touched the sky, etc. Basically minor and major disadvantages that get you ... something. Maybe the major ones get you the ability to get another bonus feat. Maybe the minor ones get you a point to spend on attributes. Allow only 1 or 2 disadvantages -- don't want to go too far with this.
3. Add an integrated rule for thrown oil, holy water, and other grenade like missiles -- splash weapons and non magical area affect missiles.
4. Maybe an updated d20 modern setting?
How could 4e be improved? Here's a couple of suggestions.
1. Add a "non-combat skill" section which has it's own number of skills to train that you can't use for combat skills. Make these skills that promote and encourage roleplaying
Not a bad idea.
dwarven mating rituals *snip* dwarf tossing, etc.
I lol'd
2. Add a set of "reverse-feats" or disadvantages which promote roleplaying by introducing "defects" in the character
This would be neat.
fear of 3.5e vs. 4e threads
*Snicker*
Basically minor and major disadvantages that get you ... something. Maybe the major ones get you the ability to get another bonus feat. Maybe the minor ones get you a point to spend on attributes. Allow only 1 or 2 disadvantages -- don't want to go too far with this.
Yeah.
1. Add a "non-combat skill" section which has it's own number of skills to train that you can't use for combat skills. Make these skills that promote and encourage roleplaying -- knowledge skills, profession skills, dwarven mating rituals, cooking, music performance (unrelated to bardic effects), singing, dwarf tossing, etc.
I don't see how this encourages role playing at all. If anything, making such details of my character mechanical restricts my role playing. I now need mechanics to tell me I'm good a cooking or good at playing the fiddle or suck at penmanship? How does making such character details mechanical encourage role playing at all?
2. Add a set of "reverse-feats" or disadvantages which promote roleplaying by introducing "defects" in the character -- fear of spiders, fear of 3.5e vs. 4e threads, fear of the dark, delusion that the world is hollow and he's touched the sky, etc. Basically minor and major disadvantages that get you ... something. Maybe the major ones get you the ability to get another bonus feat. Maybe the minor ones get you a point to spend on attributes. Allow only 1 or 2 disadvantages -- don't want to go too far with this.
This is not a good idea. I have never seen any flaw or disadvantage system that actually promoted role playing as you suggest. All they do is promote power-gaming, because people will just take the flaws that affect them the least while in exchange obtaining an advantage that they greatly benefit from. And if the flaw or disadvantage is a purely role playing tool with no mechanical effect at all, then that's even worse.
4. Maybe an updated d20 modern setting?
This I could definitely get behind. I like modern settings.
Now, I have to agree with Crimson _Concerto that advantage / disadvantage based systems are easily abuseable. It doesn't even take a munchkin player to take advantage of such a system, all it takes is common sense. Most players will pick something cool they want their character to do (I want to be a swordsman, archer, wizard, healer, etc...). Common sense dictates you don't pick a flaw that undermines this goal. Swordsmen are rarely afraid of pain, archers don't normally decide to be nearsighted, and healers are rarely afraid of blood, etc... Common sense also dictates you pick an advantage that helps your character. This is all it takes for an advantage / disadvantage system to make a character stronger. Sure, a character who wants to play a wierd concept or challenging character might pick something that really works against them (say a fragile front-line fighter) and this is great. None-the-less I don't think it is a good idea that requires players to ignore common sense to make a balanced character. (Now mandatory advantage/disadvantage systems might be ok because the power boost they provide is worked into the system).
Splash weapons are present in the adventure vault, but I don't remember being overly impressed with them (though I haven't used them enough to actually say). I've always thought this kind of one use item was fun so more options would be nice.
I do agree that an updated version of D20 modern would be awesome!
I don't see how this encourages role playing at all. If anything, making such details of my character mechanical restricts my role playing. I now need mechanics to tell me I'm good a cooking or good at playing the fiddle or suck at penmanship? How does making such character details mechanical encourage role playing at all?
As in many things, having a "skill" you bother to put points into makes the player think about his or her extra-curricular activities and gives the game structure. You can 'roll' on your cooking skill to see if you impress the tavernkeeper -- which we actually did in 3e. It's the reason you have any skill. The fact that these aren't meant to be useful in combat doesn't make them different in that respect.
This is not a good idea. I have never seen any flaw or disadvantage system that actually promoted role playing as you suggest. All they do is promote power-gaming, because people will just take the flaws that affect them the least while in exchange obtaining an advantage that they greatly benefit from. And if the flaw or disadvantage is a purely role playing tool with no mechanical effect at all, then that's even worse.
Hence the limit to 1-2. As a champions player, disadvantages did give you a little more power, but it got in your way too, so you had to consider them VERY carefully. The DM has to know what those disadvantages are and make them come up. If you're afraid of spiders in a major way, then you should get attacked by spiders fairly often, depending on how much extra power the disadvantage gave you. The point is you limit the person to 1 or 2, and then if they're afraid of something, like clowns, then the clowns show up on a periodic basis consistent with the value of the disadvantage.
The idea here is to flesh out the character -- make them feel like a real person, give them other interests, things to do outside of combat. It gives you something to roleplay ... Umm... is that a spider (referring to a small spider on a rock near their camp). Other character: Yeah, so. "Well, ah... can't we find a better campsite?" GURPs also had something called QUIRKS way back when. These were 1 point disadvantages which really amounted only to a roleplaying hook -- you have a nervous tick when discussing the weather. Your face has a deep scar you won't talk about. You're fascinated by beetles. You constantly flip a coin. Just anything you can actually roleplay during your adventures, but outside of combat (usually).
I'm not married to any particular game mechanic here, I would just like the system to give the character more depth than merely their combat capabilities. This is one way that has been done in the past.
As in many things, having a "skill" you bother to put points into makes the player think about his or her extra-curricular activities and gives the game structure. You can 'roll' on your cooking skill to see if you impress the tavernkeeper -- which we actually did in 3e. It's the reason you have any skill. The fact that these aren't meant to be useful in combat doesn't make them different in that respect.
Actually, people who think about their backgrounds are going to think about them, regardless of skill sets used.
Adding structure quickly translates to 'club to beat players into RPing the way I want them to', which is inherently a negative in roleplaying.
And no, the reason I have other skills is specifically for their interaction with combat or skill challenges, not because I want to have a 'profession tavernmaker' and a three hour debate on if 'profession builder' could make taverns too.
Hence the limit to 1-2. As a champions player, disadvantages did give you a little more power, but it got in your way too, so you had to consider them VERY carefully. The DM has to know what those disadvantages are and make them come up. If you're afraid of spiders in a major way, then you should get attacked by spiders fairly often, depending on how much extra power the disadvantage gave you. The point is you limit the person to 1 or 2, and then if they're afraid of something, like clowns, then the clowns show up on a periodic basis consistent with the value of the disadvantage.
Nah. Disadvantage systems in a level based game is inherently a bad idea. Either A). the disadvantages are so crippling that its pointless to select (blindness) or B). the disadvantage is so obscure as to be pointless. (I have a fear of three nippled orcs). and regardless: C). the Disadvantages become meaningless at higher levels as the static penalty has less point
The idea here is to flesh out the character -- make them feel like a real person, give them other interests, things to do outside of combat. It gives you something to roleplay ... Umm... is that a spider (referring to a small spider on a rock near their camp). Other character: Yeah, so. "Well, ah... can't we find a better campsite?" GURPs also had something called QUIRKS way back when. These were 1 point disadvantages which really amounted only to a roleplaying hook -- you have a nervous tick when discussing the weather. Your face has a deep scar you won't talk about. You're fascinated by beetles. You constantly flip a coin. Just anything you can actually roleplay during your adventures, but outside of combat (usually).
GURPS (The S is capatilized too), is a simulation game, DnD even 3.X was not. Will not be, and should not be.
And I find ... interesting you bring up Quirks as a positive.
I'm not married to any particular game mechanic here, I would just like the system to give the character more depth than merely their combat capabilities. This is one way that has been done in the past.
My way is: My players (And I when I play and not run) actually get a feel for our characters beyond the mechanical limitations of the sheets they have.
1.Add a "non-combat skill" section which has it's own number of skills to train that you can't use for combat skills. Make these skills that promote and encourage roleplaying -- knowledge skills, profession skills, dwarven mating rituals, cooking, music performance (unrelated to bardic effects), singing, dwarf tossing, etc.
Most of this stuff was left behind in previous editions as Chris Youngs stated in the latest Dragon Editorial.Just the Facts, Ma'am.
Fourth edition doesn't include some of the mundane mechanical elements of character building that 3rd Edition did. For example, certain skills (I'm looking at you Craft and Profession) enabled a player to feel like his character had some sort of grounding in the "real world" of the campaign. Odds were good that you never made a Craft or Profession check in your game, but having ranks in that skill made you feel connected to your character's background. In 4th Edition, those skills are gone. Why? Because we feel like a character's statistics don't represent the absolute truth of a character's story. That's right -- one of the reasons those skills (and other such elements from other editions) are gone is that we felt they hindered roleplaying.
Now if you want to say your character was a blacksmith's apprentice and knows how to make his own sword, just say so. Don't worry about feeling forced to reflect that story decision mechanically. Just write it on your character sheet. Liberating, isn't it?
Bel
...GURPS (The S is capatilized too), is a simulation game, DnD even 3.X was not. Will not be, and should not be.
And I find ... interesting you bring up Quirks as a positive.
My way is: My players (And I when I play and not run) actually get a feel for our characters beyond the mechanical limitations of the sheets they have.
Generic Universal Role Playing system -- G.U.R.P.S. Not a simulation game, just a role playing game designed for all kinds of genres. I played it for YEARS and YEARS. Haven't played 4th ed though.
What I was hoping though was for people to suggest their OWN changes/additions to 4e, not just critique mine.
Most of this stuff was left behind in previous editions as Chris Youngs stated in the latest Dragon Editorial.Just the Facts, Ma'am.
Bel
To me that is kind of like improving the automobile by removing the tires on the theory that you probably never go anywhere important anyway and the real essential nature of the car remains.
To me that is kind of like improving the automobile by removing the tires on the theory that you probably never go anywhere important anyway and the real essential nature of the car remains.
To me it's kinda like improving the car by removing the fuzzy dice. Sure they add personality and character, but not everyone uses them, not everyone cares about them and if you want them, add them in. If the PC's having profession (underwater basket weaving) is integral to your campaign storyline, you can create the skill, handle it with backgrounds (PHB2) or, even simpler, just assume they know how to do it.
This is not a good idea. I have never seen any flaw or disadvantage system that actually promoted role playing as you suggest. All they do is promote power-gaming, because people will just take the flaws that affect them the least while in exchange obtaining an advantage that they greatly benefit from.
Focusing on the stuff you're good at instead of banging your fat head against the doggy door trying to be good at something you inherently suck at is good roleplaying (assuming your character has something between his ears). Taking a flaw that demolishes something you're supposed to be good at should carry the extra effect, "Your Intelligence and Wisdom scores become 6. Also, you, the player, are a bonehead and cannot roleplay."
Actually, while I had a huge list of things that needed urgent improvement with the previous edition, right now it amounts to just a few nitpicks. I find it hard to imagine what 5E might contain, if it ever comes out. Maybe I'll have more concerns after a year or two more...
How could 4e be improved? Here's a couple of suggestions.
1. Add a "non-combat skill" section which has it's own number of skills to train that you can't use for combat skills. Make these skills that promote and encourage roleplaying -- knowledge skills, profession skills, dwarven mating rituals, cooking, music performance (unrelated to bardic effects), singing, dwarf tossing, etc.
Already exists.
Knowledge skills: History, Dungeoneering, Nature, Religion
Dwarven Mating Rituals: (D&D for Adults)
Dwarf Tossing: Grab + modified move grabbed mechanics (or use the same mechanics a certain Adventurer's Vault bracers allows)
As for profession skills, cooking, singing and music performance, here's a few suggestions:
1/2 level + stat most likely related to it + training background + miscellaneous bonusesMasonry would require a lot of manpower so it's essentially an athletics check + knowledge check (remember, building a house or a wall isn't just one automatic skill, but various skills put together).
Cooking is a matter of knowing the right ingredients (nature) and the proper recipe (Intelligence + possibly background history on it) and works best if you're trained in it (+5 on cooking).
Musical instruments generally require nimbleness (yes even the drums because all that banging isn't going to do crap if you're not going to hit the right drums at the proper rhythm), so it's a Dexterity check that works best if you're trained in it.
Singing alone is likely an Intelligence check since you have to know the song and how to sing, although Constitution check would determine how long you can keep up the singing and a Charisma check would determine how good the song sounds.
The main problem with trying to make an overlying profession skill is that you're generalizing what is a series of skills wrapped up in one profession, which means a possible revival of CraPPer skills, which I think many of us has had more than our share of.
Want a traveling opera troupe? Simple. Have a party whose players have Charisma & Dexterity as their primary/secondary stats, and whose singers have Charisma & Intelligence as their primary/secondary stats. Whenever the players play their instruments, Dexterity (and maybe some Intelligence as well) would determine how well they would be able to pluck, strum or beat in tune. When the singers sing, Intelligence would determine how well they know the lyrics and how the song goes. Charisma would provide the overall appeal that their performance has towards the crowd, because no matter how good you work an instrument or know how to sing, if you are just that bad a performer you will get boo'ed.
And of course if you need any intimidating done, just sing or perform horribly (intentionally make -5 penalty checks to your performance to gain +5 to intimidate) *evil grin*
2. Add a set of "reverse-feats" or disadvantages which promote roleplaying by introducing "defects" in the character -- fear of spiders, fear of 3.5e vs. 4e threads, fear of the dark, delusion that the world is hollow and he's touched the sky, etc. Basically minor and major disadvantages that get you ... something. Maybe the major ones get you the ability to get another bonus feat. Maybe the minor ones get you a point to spend on attributes. Allow only 1 or 2 disadvantages -- don't want to go too far with this.
You don't need a system for that. Roleplaying does that for you, since if you're a cleric who flees at the sight of blood (and became a healer so that the gods would stop all the madness and bloodshed), you don't need a penalizing feat to make you literally run as far away as possible from a drop of blood.
3. Add an integrated rule for thrown oil, holy water, and other grenade like missiles -- splash weapons and non magical area affect missiles.
Improvised thrown weapon (+0 proficiency unless you maybe multiclass to an improvised thrower), DEX vs AC, 1d4+DEX on impact, then effects varying on what you threw.
Oil: any creature that does not shift or crawl on a tile affected by it must make an Acrobatics check (DC 15 for heroic, 25 for paragon, 35 for epic) to avoid being knocked prone and slid 2 squares. Zone lasts until end of encounter or until burned away.
(Special: any fire [natural or otherwise] hitting the oil would cause the zone to burn away, with creatures in it taking 1d8 damage, 2d8 at epic)
Holy Water: undead that start its turn in a square affected by it takes 1d10 radiant damage (2d10 at epic) and is weakened + prone until end of your next turn, zone lasts until end of your next turn. Special: Undead naturally avoid this puddle.
Holy Hand Grenade: rocks fall, kills everyone with a resounding "HALLELUJAH!!"
4. Maybe an updated d20 modern setting?
VERY interesting suggestion indeed
If you took a single afternoon, you could write up non-combat skills and add them into the game as a separate system. 4e's modular nature would let you sneak them in and work them into the existing classes without any problem whatsoever.
I can't do the concept justice, but the rules for the game are available online as an SRD. I heartily recommend it. I already allow my players to make minor declarations that seem reasonable. I'd be happy to let them take even more control, if there was some limit to it, such as a number of points. Bottom line: some way to give more narrative control to characters, encouraged by the rules.
Another thing I'd like to see, would be an end to secret checks. The game should enable all checks to be made out in the open. I have no idea how this might be codified. Maybe it would just be in the form of advice and guidelines on how to deal with metagaming. My issue is that I'm a terrible liar and I cringe whenever someone suggests I should make a secret check for my players or "fudge" a roll to keep them in the dark. This would also let us do away with the bothersome "passive check" rules.
I'm not sure how to implement it, and maybe there's no good way, but that's what I'd like to see in this or a later version of Dungeons & Dragons.
Dude, you got it wrong, Dwarf tossing is a combat skill :P
As are most "dwarven mating rituals"... :D
And, speaking of that, I'm pretty tired of "better" race-class combinations, mostly because I'm so tired of the cliches. Kord kill me if I ever play a halfling rogue, or a deva invoker, or a tiefling warlock, but because I crave a modicum of originality, I'm stuck playing "horrible" combinations. I don't know what to do about this either; the racial feats help, but they're just patches, really.
I think I'm looking for a game that can't be "optimized" or maybe one that can be "optimized" in an infinite number of ways.
Haven't played 4th ed though.
Try it, you'll be pleasantly surprised, so long as you treat it as a different game, and note 3.0:3.5 :: 3.5:4.0
Generic Universal Role Playing system -- G.U.R.P.S. Not a simulation game, just a role playing game designed for all kinds of genres. I played it for YEARS and YEARS. Haven't played 4th ed though.
What I was hoping though was for people to suggest their OWN changes/additions to 4e, not just critique mine.
For what I bolded: I had the feeling that you were a GURPS Player. :D What 4th ed does is allow the DM and player to decided how RP or non-RP things should be.
My wife has a Rogue character who's background is being a textile merchant princess. She knows the ins and outs of business, and gets a bonus to any Knowledge skill roll that would have anything to do with her background. I get to give story incentives for her to use that background, and she has a reason to have that background.
Meanwhile, at current standing, my Mom just wants to nuke things with a wizard. She doesn't really want or need RP, currently. So what she gets is a character who blows **** up as good as she possibly can.
Which is why Flaw/Perk and Profession skills are really not welcome as core rules, in my opinion. They work well for the Role-player looking to get game advantage out of role-playing, but not for the neophyte gamer looking to blow **** up.
What bothers me is when a few of these weapons emerge from the pack as "better" and so someone who likes the "flavor" of another weapon has to give up what makes the other weapons better, or patch with feats. It's annoying. I think the game could work fine with players choosing any "look" they want for their character, and having the defenses, offenses, and damage of the character stem more from the class and race than cosmetic choices.
This does not reflect my experience. 4th edition does make a good job at creating weapon options. While it's true that some classes are thematically tied to certain weapons (_sword_mage and rogue), there is still plenty of choice. It's just that the charop crowd all run for the latest fashionable combo like a herd of cattle. That doesn't mean there aren't any other interesting or powerful combinations out there, they are just less popular. With more and more splatbooks and dragon articles out, we'll see even more support for unusual weapon choices like a war pick.
And, speaking of that, I'm pretty tired of "better" race-class combinations, mostly because I'm so tired of the cliches. Kord kill me if I ever play a halfling rogue, or a deva invoker, or a tiefling warlock, but because I crave a modicum of originality, I'm stuck playing "horrible" combinations. I don't know what to do about this either; the racial feats help, but they're just patches, really.
I think I'm looking for a game that can't be "optimized" or maybe one that can be "optimized" in an infinite number of ways.
ANY game that offers some kind of choice of mechanics means there are better and worse options, and any game can be optimized. There only difference are simple and straightforward games, where optimizing is simple and straightforward, and complicated and convoluted games, where optimizing means searching the needle in the haystack (but if you find one, with much more drastic consequences.)
I think that D&D 4th edition does the right thing in making the obvious choice the right choice in most cases. Elf ranger is an archetype, and it's a good choice from mechanics. So is the halfling rogue.
I don't agree that these archetypal choices are necessarily a bad thing. Just because a character is a halfling rogue doesn't mean he's necessarily boring and unsexy. It's the background, the personality and the quirks that shape a unique and interesting character from the archetype. Race and class give you a slab of marble, but whether you create a stair, a sarcophagus or Michelangelo's David is up to you, the player. You can make things more interesting by choosing an unusual stone, but whether that makes an interesting character still depends on your skill as a sculptor.
And, speaking of that, I'm pretty tired of "better" race-class combinations, mostly because I'm so tired of the cliches. Kord kill me if I ever play a halfling rogue, or a deva invoker, or a tiefling warlock, but because I crave a modicum of originality, I'm stuck playing "horrible" combinations. I don't know what to do about this either; the racial feats help, but they're just patches, really.
Then try a Halfling that is either a Bard (Because they make OK bards) or Paladins (The protecting kind, specifically). They also aren't horrible Archer Rangers or Deceptive type warlocks. However, the Class Halflings are most suited for besides Rogues are Chaos Sorcerers. So if you want some optimization and flavor, go with that, otherwise, the other options are good too.
Devas are ok as Devoted Clerics, Druids (of any kind), Swordmages. They are well suited for Isolating Avengers, Panther Shamans and Control Wizards.
Tieflings can make it as Protecting Paladins, Sorcerers, Swordmages and Wizards, and are better than average at being Cunning Bards.
Why write all this out? Just to show that while the archetypes exist, there are alternatives. :D
With more and more splatbooks and dragon articles out, we'll see even more support for unusual weapon choices like a war pick.
I'm sure you're right, but if they're in the form of feats or weapon enhancements, then I'll always feel like I need to justify why I'm taking those feats or enhancements over other better ones, just to get a look I want.
ANY game that offers some kind of choice of mechanics means there are better and worse options, and any game can be optimized.
I know. It's something of a pipe dream. The thing is, we have all these balanced mechanics because the game is expected to operate even in the absence of trust between the players and the DM. But if there are suprapowerful optimizations that are possible, then the trust ebbs away, and DMs have to restrict options as "broken."
You can make things more interesting by choosing an unusual stone, but whether that makes an interesting character still depends on your skill as a sculptor.
You're right, of course. Playing a halfling rogue still wouldn't be my first choice, but if I were handed one for a one-off, or to fill a gap, I like to think I'd make that character my own and have fun with it.
Why write all this out? Just to show that while the archetypes exist, there are alternatives. :D
That's true. I guess it all comes down to my personal issue: that I feel judged for making alternative choices. I'm rarely judged out-loud, though I have gotten some odd looks. Maybe I'd just like the game to encourage the alternatives not to be thought of as "sub-optimal" or "horrible" but as the "advanced options."
They should actually make it an online only RPG, and then lease out the engine to game developers.
I'm just going to wait for the people with no sense of humor to come in and kill you.
That's true. I guess it all comes down to my personal issue: that I feel judged for making alternative choices. I'm rarely judged out-loud, though I have gotten some odd looks. Maybe I'd just like the game to encourage the alternatives not to be thought of as "sub-optimal" or "horrible" but as the "advanced options."
The list I gave only shows classes that the example races at least have the primary Ability Score as a bonus score. If a race has no scores that augment their class, I totally think of it as horrible or suboptimal because really, if the class and race don't jive, you are putting the fun (and survivability) of your friend's characters in jeopardy to have your more challenging sense of fun. It's not a single person game; otherwise, I'd say gimp yourself all you want. But making a Deva Barbarian or a Minotaur Wizard just because you want the difference is not friendly game play. Some Beings just aren't good at certain things, and if you want to fill a roll, and help your friends, and make sure everyone has fun at the table, it's important to pick correctly.
Thinking of them as “advanced options” is like thinking competitively, in my opinion. It’s putting your character together while saying, “For the good of my character concept, the rest of the players had better be willing to suffer my less than stellar Race/Class choices”. That just rubs me the wrong way.
They should actually make it an online only RPG, and then lease out the engine to game developers.
This is my suggestion for 5e!! with the amount of portable gaming everyone is doing...
heck with the Nintendo DS...
DMG's and MM's the same DS cartridge
Players Handbooks a single DS cartridge
a GBA cartridge that handles the character's Information then everyone could play that way
phones... omg, this is crazy... what am I saying...
maybe they will market 5e as a unique system that only has 3 books!! and you wont have to buy 3 players handbooks, 20 power books, 3 Dungeon Masters guides, too many Monsters Manuals, and maybe they will make a Single Campaign book for each setting... instead of a players guide and a campaign guide, and then print extra errata in the magazines!!!
This is my suggestion for 5e!! with the amount of portable gaming everyone is doing...
heck with the Nintendo DS...
DMG's and MM's the same DS cartridge
Players Handbooks a single DS cartridge
a GBA cartridge that handles the character's Information then everyone could play that way
phones... omg, this is crazy... what am I saying...
maybe they will market 5e as a unique system that only has 3 books!! and you wont have to buy 3 players handbooks, 20 power books, 3 Dungeon Masters guides, too many Monsters Manuals, and maybe they will make a Single Campaign book for each setting... instead of a players guide and a campaign guide, and then print extra errata in the magazines!!!
RiFTS?
RiFTS?
I think you like giving me indigestion. . . .;)
RiFTS?
why you say that? If I had the character generator I would run PbP games here!! Rifts was what I went to when 2.5 came out and what I came from when 4e came out... now to do a rifts 4e conversion... thats 5e!!
However, even as a 4th Edition enthousiast, I can admit that it is not a perfect system. It is the best system so far, but not perfect. Here are some of my thoughts on what I would like to see in 5th Edition. Yes, there will eventually be a 5th Edition, no matter how much you wish that there won't be. Now, please be respectful and don't bash me for my opinions.
Here are my thoughts on what I would like to see in 5e:
1. Build Options for every class. By this, I am referring to the choice that many classes offer, such as brutal scoundrel vs. ruthless ruffian vs. artful dodger. I absolutely love these choices. They remind me of the kits in 2e and I am really happy with how they have been implemented in 4th Edition. It introduces a lot of variety into each class, and I like how different options rely on different secondary scores. While all the new classes implement these choices, some of the older classes released in the original PHB don't (cleric, paladin, wizard, fighter). While these classes all have new options now, some of them (ex cleric) were implemented in a slightly clumsy way, since the original class wasn't very flexible. In 5e, I would like to see each class have 2 build options right off the bat.
2. Make implements more like weapons. By this, I mean that implement-using classes would have [i] for damage dice, rather than preset d8 or d6 or whatever. It would be exactly how weapon-using classes have [W]. I really love how the weapon using classes have [W] for damage dice. I thought it was a brilliant idea. I would like to see it carried over to implement-using classes as well. Just make a table for implements, much like the current weapons table. For example, a staff implement might do d8 damage dice, and have the brutal property. A sword implement would do d8 and have high crit.
3. Clear up the whole implement as weapon mess. There's a whole lot of wierd issues that have cropped up ever since weapons have been able to be used as implements. For example, the daggermaster sorcerer, and weapon focus with staffs gives a damage bonus to implement attacks with the staff. It makes non-weapon implements such as totems and wands feel less useful, since the weapon/implements get stuff that applies to both groups.
4. A distinctive class feature for controllers. I love how 4th Edition has given each of the different roles a class feature that complements their intended role in the party. Defenders have their marks, Strikers have bonus damage (or a reroll in the case of the avenger), and Leaders have their minor action healing. However, controllers lack a feature to call their own. I think this is due to the conflicted ideas about the controller role when 4e was initially released. The designers weren't sure how exactly the controller was supposed to work, which is why the wizard is a bit wonky compared to the newer controllers. By the time 5e rolls around, I'm sure the designers will have a good idea of what controllers do, and come up with a distinctive feature for them.
5. Encourage powers to be used throughout an encounter, rather than going nova in the first round. Encounter powers are one of my favourite things about 4e. However, I have noticed a trend to simply blow all the powers during the first two or three rounds, and then whack away with at-wills. I would love to see Mike Mearls implement a mechanic similar to the tokens that he created in the Iron Heroes game. If anyone is unfamiliar with this, tokens would essentially work like the power points that the new psion uses. You can use these tokens to augment your at-wills. However, you don't have only a set number of tokens/power points to use during an encounter. You can gain more tokens through certain actions. For example, say we use the ranger. When the ranger's "quarry" hasn't moved since the rangers last turn, the ranger gets a token. This would represent the fact that it is easier to take aim at a stationary target. This token/powerpoint can then be used to augment one of the ranger's at-wills, just like the current psion class does. This would add a cool new tactical element to the classes, and encourage them to do things to gain power points, and then manage them throughout the encounter. This may sound a little confusing, but I think it would be very cool.
6. Keep up the good work.
4e is a masterpiece roleplaying game. I have been a fan of Mike Mearls' work ever since I read his Iron Heroes rules, and I love what he has done with 4th Edition. I would like to see the same dedication to balance and playability continue in 5e. I hope WotC doesn't try to cater to the h4ters that demand craft:basketweaving to be reintroduced. I would like 5e to be an evolution of 4e, and continue innovating the game rather than taking a step backward.3) I don't see a mess. There are in fact reasons you won't want an Implement that's a weapon, especially if it's a two handed one. Not to mention with a Quick Draw feat multiple one handed Implements bring up a really diverse ability of paid for Powers. I haven't found a reason yet to pick up the Staff.
5) WotC is created reasons for that by implementing Feats and mechanics that cause effects when you use one or the other. I can Hand of Radiance an at will and then they've all got -2 to there rolls thanks to my Feat choice and now I can smash them more easily with a Daily Power and have less fear of them saving.
Just my two cents.
2) Wait? Sit back and think this threw. You want fireballs to require you to be holding a weapon? Just think that threw and you'll stop.
Please go back and read my point through. I did not say that a fireball should require you to hold a weapon. Not at all.
Please go back and read my point through. I did not say that a fireball should require you to hold a weapon. Not at all.
Oh you just want to be able to channel spells through swords and spiked chains? Eh...I bet they'll come out with a feat for that eventually. If my clothy spellcaster has an effective 20 Str thanks to Melee Training (Wisdom) a Implement Proficiency (Whatever) would be a lot less stat messy.
4th is still young. You're better off saying what you want for 4th because 5th won't have a system like this.
I know, I know. 4th edition is head and tails above all previous edition in terms of rules clarity. But it's still not clear on the edges. There are terms like "wield" and "hold" and "move" that either mean different things in different scenarios or simply have no rules meaning whatsoever -- and the existence of these terms causes rules debates.
Define everything, and write everything in the clearest manner you can. Rules debates suck. Build the system like you're building a computer program. Bug test the living hell out of it's internal logic. I'm tired of having arguments over whether you can cast through a Cunning Quarterstaff because of a complete lack of definition within the rules.
Oh you just want to be able to channel spells through swords and spiked chains? Eh...I bet they'll come out with a feat for that eventually. If my clothy spellcaster has an effective 20 Str thanks to Melee Training (Wisdom) a Implement Proficiency (Whatever) would be a lot less stat messy.
4th is still young. You're better off saying what you want for 4th because 5th won't have a system like this.
lol you totally miss what I'm saying. You can already use swords and spiked chains as implements. Check out arcane power.
What I mean is that implement-using classes will work on the same basic mechanism as weapon-based classes. For example, a wizards magic missile will say: [i] + Int modifier damage.
There would be a table of implements, and each one will have their own damage dice and properties.
For example:
Staff: d8 damage, brutal
Orb: d6 damage, -1 to saves.
Holy Symbol: d6 damage, +1 attack
So alright...basically you want to be able to choose how strong your Magic Missile is by swapping to different implements right? Isn't that what I said the FIRST time? In which case I bring back the argument. You want to require an implement to cast a spell?
It's not like they get optional as the game progresses. The higher your level, the more you depend on the enhancement bonus of your implement for your attacks and damage. The difference might be slight during early Heroic, but it only gets more pronounced when you reach a higher level and there comes a point where you simply need a magical implement for your powers.
Many spells sacrifice raw single-target damage for conditions and targetting multiple opponents. You can't do that nearly as well when the base damage is set. You'd have to scale by [i]s, which gives you less room to vary.
My opinion? I'd much, MUCH prefer if they would make weapons more like impliments. I really feel the whole "shopping for pluses" approach of the weapon system is needless. It would be nice if damage was simply noted in the power, for EVERY power.
This would also help to avoid stupid weapons that give you two dice to roll for damage. It is needless extra dice rolling for the benifit of a literally fraction difference.
Spell damage being determined by implement decreases the variety of effects available to powers.
Many spells sacrifice raw single-target damage for conditions and targetting multiple opponents. You can't do that nearly as well when the base damage is set. You'd have to scale by [i]s, which gives you less room to vary.
So I assume you also dislike the current [W] system as well?
I'd like for there to not be a 5e for a good long while. I'm quite happy with 4e and have invested quite a bit of money into it. I don't even want to see a 4.5e, I think things are just fine.
This is absolutely possible and, if WotC plays their cards right, can be a financially-savvy future. If they stick with the formula they have set in place (one campaign setting per year, regular PHB updates, power-source updates, etc.), they should be able to easily squeeze 10 years or more out of 4E. While the negative part of me highly doubts it will happen, I can have hope...right?
This would also help to avoid stupid weapons that give you two dice to roll for damage. It is needless extra dice rolling for the benifit of a literally fraction difference.
A fraction of a difference on average damage.
With a weapon that does, say, 2d4 you do 5 average damage versus 4.5 for a 1d8, but you also have a bell curve to your roll. You're less likely to roll low (or high) on 2d4 than 1d8. Also, certain enchantments and properties, such as Brutal and Vorpal benefit from more, smaller dice vice fewer, larger dice.
What we need are actual clear rules that are better thought out on how implements work and how weapon/implement combination objects work. Actually the best approach might be more the opposite of what you've suggested. Implements and weapons perhaps should be LESS conjoined. It might also be interesting to build certain distinctions into the implement types as you've suggested, but maybe not in the form of a damage die. An orb could work best for certain types of powers, a totem better for other types of powers, etc. Perhaps any class could use any implement in theory, but they would naturally use certain ones preferentially. Then implement proficiency could work like weapon proficiency does now.
I'd kind of like to see the death of enhancement bonuses. Getting rid of the whole awkard "you must have an enhancement bonus to be effective" thing would actually solve a bunch of problems in one fell swoop. It would put actions like grab and shield bash on a par with using a power for example. It would also just plain simplify the math, allow true no-magic type settings, get rid of problems with story concepts where the players don't have access to their gear, etc. Frankly enhancement bonuses right now are essentially meaningless since they only serve to boost character power up to expected levels. Items could then simply provide properties and powers. It would also mean that it would no longer be necessary for players to constantly pursue upgrades to otherwise perfectly serviceable items.
I agree with Khift as well. 4e set a laudable goal of making the game mechanics much better defined, but the implementation seems to have fallen far short of that goal. Its a vast improvement over earlier editions and overall better than most other systems out there, but they did a fairly poor job with terminology. The system needed some actual systems engineering practice to be applied in order to get that last mile.
I also feel like there is something of a valid criticism leveled by some of the 4e haters when they go after power design. There could be a larger number of powers which aren't linked to making an attack roll in order to achieve some basically non-combat effect. The distinction between utility and attack is a bit stark and overly limits the design space the system can occupy. Granted that the majority of players probably aren't too concerned with this, but obviously there is a substantial minority who do have issues with it.
I think it would also be interesting to explore delinking power lists more from specific classes. I think making them entirely class specific caters to scalability problems but it also seems to be promulgating a bit of an excess of individual classes beyond what was really needed. In my mind classes should be more archetypal. There shouldn't really need to be 3 different martial melee power lists. A more nuanced design would probably use one power list per archetype and make the real distinctions more at the level of class features designed to specifically push characters focus onto one or another role. The CD powers just barely scratched the surface of this edge of this concept and its a shame it wasn't possible to base class mechanics on it.
I totally agree, 4e is a great improvement overall and none of its failings are significant enough to seriously mar a good game. Like anything it could always be improved! Its hard to imagine a 5e though. I suppose it may come some day.
1: Leave ability scores alone.
Sure it's kinda cool to boost your stats through the roof, but it was also cool when an 18 meant something from level 1 to level 20. It's not like we aren't getting half level bonus to awesome anyway. 90% of my problems with 4th ED (skills/damage/defenses) would be solved by this.
A fraction of a difference on average damage.
With a weapon that does, say, 2d4 you do 5 average damage versus 4.5 for a 1d8, but you also have a bell curve to your roll. You're less likely to roll low (or high) on 2d4 than 1d8.
It doesn't really matter if it is a bell curve or not. All that really matters is average damage, and to a lesser extent, maximum damage. Regardless of the fact that the 1d8 has a larger distribution of possible results than 2d4, the average is what matters, because the average is what you look at to gague general power. Maximum is slightly important, because it is used in crits, but usually that doesn't matter.
Also, certain enchantments and properties, such as Brutal and Vorpal benefit from more, smaller dice vice fewer, larger dice.
And again, this goes back to the "shopping for pluses" problem. If the only purpose of double-dice weapon damage is so people can try to squeeeeeze more damage out of it, then they are undesirable, in my opinion.
Stuff I'd like
1: Leave ability scores alone.
Sure it's kinda cool to boost your stats through the roof, but it was also cool when an 18 meant something from level 1 to level 20. It's not like we aren't getting half level bonus to awesome anyway. 90% of my problems with 4th ED (skills/damage/defenses) would be solved by this.
I agree with this. Gaining extra ability score seems to be a 3E relic. It causes a definite imbalance over time, as when at level 1 you are X better because of your ability score, at higher levels you will be much more. The math breaks down.
If I were to attach a number 2 to your above suggestion, I'd make it do away with ability scores. It's fine if they still keep in being able to have a +1 mod to Str or somesuch, but the "3-18" scale is vestigle. It doesn't do anything anymore. All that matters is the mod, which doesn't match one-to-one with the score.
Return to 3e roots and fix the fundamental math issues. Then bring back real multiclassing, interesting class features, and don't publish any stupid powers (rangers with psychic powers? NO).
Wow...you're on a roll tonight. Going from thread to thread baiting the fans of 4E might seem like a real fun time for you, but it's tiresome and pointless for the rest of us that wish to participate in an actual conversation.
EDIT: 3E roots? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!
Return to 3e roots and fix the fundamental math issues. Then bring back real multiclassing, interesting class features, and don't publish any stupid powers (rangers with psychic powers? NO).
Yes, because every Barbarian and Rogue being exactly the same was much more interesting than the 4E versions. [/sarcasm]
3E didn't care about Fundamental Math at all. It screwed the entire RNG and then turned DnD into a Point-Buy System via Skills, Feats, and Levels all basically being Points. You have X Points of Skills, Levels, and Feats; choose. Most versions of DnD avoid that because it's a Class-based game. I'd have to disagree on 3rd Edition being anything to aim for for a future Edition of DnD.
My only annoyance: Test Epic before releasing Epic-Level stuff, please. Really screwed the PHB, there, guys.
Return to 3e roots and fix the fundamental math issues. Then bring back real multiclassing, interesting class features, and don't publish any stupid powers (rangers with psychic powers? NO).
This thread is about possible improvements to 4e that can be made in 5e. This isn't about going backwards. Why even bother trying to make a better horse-drawn carriage instead of trying to make a better car? The car is already the evolution of the carriage.
It doesn't really matter if it is a bell curve or not. All that really matters is average damage, and to a lesser extent, maximum damage. Regardless of the fact that the 1d8 has a larger distribution of possible results than 2d4, the average is what matters, because the average is what you look at to gague general power. Maximum is slightly important, because it is used in crits, but usually that doesn't matter.
Not everything is CharOp.
Some people do find it more desirable to consistently roll average damage and other find it more desirable to have an equal chance of rolling higher damage.
Your "average is what matters" argument doesn't pan out. A character is not going to make enough damage rolls against a single enemy to make "average damage" matter for anything other than theoretical optimization. In the long run the reduction of chance favors the players while chance favors the enemies.
Since you get more consistent (less chance) damage with 2d4 than with 1d8 the 2d4 is better, even ignoring the extra +0.5 average damage.
Which is why most of the 2dX weapons are either two-handed or superior.
That said, one change I would like to see (which I do not believe will see the light of day in 4E and thus qualifies as a 5E design goal) would be to make basic usability not require better weapons.
Case in point, in SWSE, at high levels, you could be wielding a weapon you picked up just yesterday or you could be using the same Blaster Pistol you had when the campaign started. And in either case, your base accuracy with either weapon is just as good as the other.
Also, if you want, you can devote yourself to just one weapon, or be, basically, the K-Wing Starfighter, with six different weapons hanging off straps on each side of your body.
In 4E, doing that means that, because of wealth by level, you're running off of maybe three of those weapons having level appropriate accuracy, and the rest might as well not be used.
Possible Houserule Sblocked for Slight Off-Topicness
Show
I've tried coming up with a houserule taking away the need for magical enhancement just to be able to hit with what you're using. Basically, at levels 3, 8, 13, 18, 23, and 28, you'd get a +1 bonus to hit (and maybe damage; remember this is an idea being fleshed out) with whatever you're using. Magic weapons and implements would simply no longer grant those bonuses, but would otherwise still be the source of whatever else they grant (bonus damage on a crit, properties and item powers).
Magic armor and neck slot items bother me less, because those are not likely to be changed in the midst of battle, but extending the change to those items wouldn't seem to be all that more difficult.
However, the possibility of being a high level member of a class that uses wands and then spending gold on a bunch of low-level Wands in order to have a bunch of spells to use comes to mind as a big problem with this houserule. Sure, for Encounter Attack and Utility Wands, you'd still be expending a Magic Daily Item Slot for each use, regardless of how many of those wands you stocked up on, but for Wands that convert At-Will Attack powers into Magic Item Encounter Powers, no such restrictions exist. You could have a Wand user with a Wand for each and every At-Will Attack power in every class that uses a Wand (a whole four of them), and pop one off each encounter. An unprecedented amount of versatility coming from a houserule only designed to make accuracy available regardless of how many weapons owned.
So I'm not done yet.
Magic armor and neck slot items bother me less, because those are not likely to be changed in the midst of battle, but extending the change to those items wouldn't seem to be all that more difficult.
However, the possibility of being a high level member of a class that uses wands and then spending gold on a bunch of low-level Wands in order to have a bunch of spells to use comes to mind as a big problem with this houserule. Sure, for Encounter Attack and Utility Wands, you'd still be expending a Magic Daily Item Slot for each use, regardless of how many of those wands you stocked up on, but for Wands that convert At-Will Attack powers into Magic Item Encounter Powers, no such restrictions exist. You could have a Wand user with a Wand for each and every At-Will Attack power in every class that uses a Wand (a whole four of them), and pop one off each encounter. An unprecedented amount of versatility coming from a houserule only designed to make accuracy available regardless of how many weapons owned.
So I'm not done yet.
why you say that? If I had the character generator I would run PbP games here!! Rifts was what I went to when 2.5 came out and what I came from when 4e came out... now to do a rifts 4e conversion... thats 5e!!
I say that because RiFTS has all the nonsense stats that one will ever need, including three different armor ratings for the same stat!!
If you want rules like this, play RiFTS. I tried it, and the only thing I liked was the alignment names. One guy had an insect dude that had 1 ac in the next step in armor, which was like 100 of the normal AC. It was impossible to hit him!!
He says this much more eloquently and precisely than I did.
Not everything is CharOp.
Some people do find it more desirable to consistently roll average damage and other find it more desirable to have an equal chance of rolling higher damage.
Your "average is what matters" argument doesn't pan out. A character is not going to make enough damage rolls against a single enemy to make "average damage" matter for anything other than theoretical optimization. In the long run the reduction of chance favors the players while chance favors the enemies.
Since you get more consistent (less chance) damage with 2d4 than with 1d8 the 2d4 is better, even ignoring the extra +0.5 average damage.
Which is why most of the 2dX weapons are either two-handed or superior.
Average is what matters. Some players perceive that 2d4 is better than d8 because they have a pathological fear of rolled 1's, but rustmonster hit the nail on the head here.
4e already took strides in the direction of narrowing averages and removal of 'extraneous' die rolls. Expressions in 3.5 that would be 6d6 (avg 21, range 30) in 4e read 2d6 + 14 (avg 21, range 10).
The change seemed to appeal to a lot of players because of the 'lucky dice' perception, which likely factored into the developer logic, as well as the stated goal to speed play with less dice adding; however, the 2d6 + 14 is REALLY 2d6 + 2 + 5 + 2 [if A] + 1 + 1 [if B] + 3. Ultimately, eliminating random elements favors the PCs, often at the expense of elements of suspense.
4e replaced the fateful handful-o-dice with tracking small, situational modifiers on top of narrowed randomness.
I've heard convincing speculations that 5e will continue along this trend of cutting down dice 'clutter' by eliminating the attack roll. When you consider the math, the attack roll amounts to a percent of damage relative to your opponents' defenses. You can see here, only damage OR attack ever needs to be rolled for a random event; here, I chose to-hit:
+5/AC: 8 damage vs AC 21 ~ avg damage = 8 x 25% = 2
But in the case of random damage only, players get an effect every turn rather than 'wasting' 75% of their actions. Resistances still apply, criticals can still be expressed as some bonus when max damage is rolled, and status effects can be accounted for similarly off of a single die-roll. The major benefit is that the player gets to do 'something' every turn, and need only make one die roll per action.
Call it the slaughter of sacred cows, but I would do without enhancement bonuses to hit and damage for weapons, armor, shields, neck-slot items, and implements. Basically, this would turn magic items into devices you would seek for their function, rather than a requirement for characters to be on par with monsters of corresponding levels.
This.
Also, I want the new insider to work out of the box. And advice to making your own classes, feats, rituals, whatever.
I understand what you guys are saying about the mechanical side of things. But the point is that not everybody chooses weapons just for what deals more damage, or has a higher average. Some people take weapons purely for the feel they evoke. And some take them just because they fit a character better. Though that last bit admittedly has nothing to do with the 2-die vs. 1-die thing.
innervation1: Thing is, you and the other guy are looking at this dice thing from a purely power-gaming, mechanical point-of-view. Not everybody does that. Some people do things for other reasons. If I were playing your classic knight-in-armor style character, I'd choose a 2-die weapon over a 1-die for one main reason: more consistently dealing average damage. I just don't see a disciplined, well-trained champion clipping his foe, or landing a weak strike. If I were instead playing an un-disciplined, savage warrior, I'd go for a single, higher die size. Purely because it would make my damage more variable. I'd get a hit for massive damage one turn, but overextend and barely wing the guy the next turn.
I'm sorry, but that is highly dubious. Firstly, thank you for attempting to brush off the issue as "Well, you guys are just stupid powergamers!" We are talking about game design, of bloody course we will talk about it from a mechanical standpoint.
Secondly, when I think of a knight in shining armour steriotype, the first thing that pops into my head is not "Yeah, he probably causes consistant damage numbers." I think "Fights with honor", "Brave", "Noble". Things that define the character. Damage numbers don't cross my mind in this case, as that has nothing to do with the concept. Damage numbers are highly abstract, they mean almost nothing. It doesn't show "More discipline" to cause more consistant damage totals. It just shows that you cause consitant damage totals. Funny how I am just thinking about powergaming, when you are the one equating a knight with how his damage number distribution is set.
I understand what you guys are saying about the mechanical side of things. But the point is that not everybody chooses weapons just for what deals more damage, or has a higher average. Some people take weapons purely for the feel they evoke. And some take them just because they fit a character better. Though that last bit admittedly has nothing to do with the 2-die vs. 1-die thing.
And this is exactly why I want those sorts of differences between weapons removed. I want to create a Fighter who uses a Morningstar as his weapon. But doing so is mechanically handicaping me. In order to play my concept, even if it is not at all far-fetched, requires I take what is equivilant to a mechanical penalty compared to other Fighters who just use a Longsword.
But what if that Morningstar was mechanically identical to a Longsword? Now my concept is not only realized in roleplaying, but I lost no mechanical ability. This means that I have more incentive to choose a weapon based on my concept rather than just choosing the mechanically "best" weapon. Things like some weapons having more dice and therefore interacting strangly with other things only serves to make choosing weapons based on a concept undesirable mechanically.
Average is what matters. Some players perceive that 2d4 is better than d8 because they have a pathological fear of rolled 1's, but rustmonster hit the nail on the head here.
4e already took strides in the direction of narrowing averages and removal of 'extraneous' die rolls. Expressions in 3.5 that would be 6d6 (avg 21, range 30) in 4e read 2d6 + 14 (avg 21, range 10).
The change seemed to appeal to a lot of players because of the 'lucky dice' perception, which likely factored into the developer logic, as well as the stated goal to speed play with less dice adding; however, the 2d6 + 14 is REALLY 2d6 + 2 + 5 + 2 [if A] + 1 + 1 [if B] + 3. Ultimately, eliminating random elements favors the PCs, often at the expense of elements of suspense.
4e replaced the fateful handful-o-dice with tracking small, situational modifiers on top of narrowed randomness.
I've heard convincing speculations that 5e will continue along this trend of cutting down dice 'clutter' by eliminating the attack roll. When you consider the math, the attack roll amounts to a percent of damage relative to your opponents' defenses. You can see here, only damage OR attack ever needs to be rolled for a random event; here, I chose to-hit:
+5/AC: 8 damage vs AC 21 ~ avg damage = 8 x 25% = 2
But in the case of random damage only, players get an effect every turn rather than 'wasting' 75% of their actions. Resistances still apply, criticals can still be expressed as some bonus when max damage is rolled, and status effects can be accounted for similarly off of a single die-roll. The major benefit is that the player gets to do 'something' every turn, and need only make one die roll per action.
I think eliminating the attack roll is going too far, and it completely kills the suspense of the game. You have to consider player enjoyment when designing an rpg.
Call it the slaughter of sacred cows, but I would do without enhancement bonuses to hit and damage for weapons, armor, shields, neck-slot items, and implements. Basically, this would turn magic items into devices you would seek for their function, rather than a requirement for characters to be on par with monsters of corresponding levels.
I agree with you. It would really make magic items more interesting than just another number on your sheet. It would also make the system much more versatile, by allowing it to be used with low-magic or no-magic worlds.
I think eliminating the attack roll is going too far, and it completely kills the suspense of the game. You have to consider player enjoyment when designing an rpg.
The attack roll is pretty much essential to the game. It determines if you cause damage, but more importantly, it determines if you can cause status ailments, something can't be modeled without an attack roll. The attack roll isn't going anywhere.
The damage roll on the other hand...
- Give more hp, and deal more stable damage. An example would be giving the fighter 30 hp at first level and their con score every level after that. Then have a shortsword deal 4+1d4 damage, a longsword deal 6 + 1d6, a greataxe deal 6 + 1d10. This would solve a lot of the damage escalation problems with weapons.
- Cap each powers damage by level, then test to see if it ever goes over with the addition of feats and other powers.
- Have a list of powers that any class can choose from. You know like "Daily make two at-will attacks).
- Get rid of the magical bonuses on weapons and implements. It really screws with the balance.
- Standardize the effects of powers. Have certain side effects for higher levels and certain ones for lower levels. This will help fight power creep.
- Like others have said define everything. that way we know what the heck is going to happen and it'll cut down on pointless arguments and misconceptions.
- Set limits and ranges on everything so that there will be no room for power creep. In other words make the developers design the game where they have to come up with new stuff instead of increasing the power of the characters.
- Get a lawyer who is also an avid D&D player to look over the rules and make sure they are stated in a clear and concise way that can't be misinterpreted.
- Fix the implements to work in a similar way to the weapons above.
- Allow multiple powers on each weapon. Your already limited to use a specific number of encounter and daily powers from items anyway, it just makes it simpler to allow multiple effects on weapons. It also gets rid of the characters that carry an arsenal in their bags of holding and makes it easier to avoid getting the nearly useless quickdraw feat.
- Add another vector dimension to the system. We have skills, feats, powers, class features, race features, we need another one for fifth edition. Maybe call it destinies and have it independent of class and race. Maybe have it give you things like stat bonuses, or special feats and powers at various levels.
- Get rid of the str, dex, con, int, wis, cha number and just go with the bonuses. So you just add the ability to the effect or roll, much easier. Str 3, add 3 to your attack. Int 3 add 3 to your damage. To generate scores you either point buy 12 points or roll 1d4.
- Get rid of the motto that you can't have any negatives. Its ignorant and doesn't work. It only caters to the power gamers (of which I am one).
- Scale the race the same way the class scales. Get powers or race features based on level. Dragonborn gets 1d6 damage breath at 1st, at 7th give them wings that allow them to fly 3 squares. etc etc.
- Create something between a spell and a ritual. Call it an enchantment make it take a few rounds to cast or if you want to not worry about tracking rounds make it take until the end of your next turn to cast. Then have it have a decent effect. Have it be interrupted if the caster takes damage. Have them be reliable encounter or daily powers that work like dailies or better.
- Increase the usage of action points. Expend them to get a +5 to an attack, get a free saving throw, or make an enemy reroll an attack and/or damage.
- Include all the classes in the players handbook or leave the classes out of the PHB and create power books that include all the classes. Instead of creating new classes for expansions create new class and race features, powers, feats, and skill uses, items and things like that (see the balance ones above to avoid power creep).
- Pay a professional company that is tried and tested to do the online content instead of what seems an inexperienced (or god forbid incompetent) group of programmers. Use those people as interns or assistants until they are a well honed and trained team.
- Start over from scratch on your online initiative and get it up and running in beta before you even let out a peep about it. (hint: properly worded milestones do wonders for outsourced projects).
That's all I got off the top of my head.
Sub-points:
I don't like the fact that odd-number ability scores mean nothing (with the occasional exception that they are feat prereqs.) I can think of two possible solutions to this: as an above poster suggests, make every score point equivalent to a 'modifier' point (very simple!), or, make every score point grant some kind of advantage that isn't necessarily a modifier, or the same modifier. (More complex, but I don't feel overly so.)
For example, I have this in mind (not fixing the 8-as-minimum thing for this example):
Strength Strength Minor Mod Strength Major Mod
8 -1 -1
9 0 -1
10 0 0
11 1 0
12 2 0
13 2 1
14 3 1
15 4 1
16 4 2
17 5 2
18 6 2
Same table for each score. The "minor mod" applies to things that are safe to heavily modify by ability scores, perhaps including damage. The "major mod" applies to things which should be only slightly modified by ability scores, perhaps including to-hit rolls. Note that every single score-increase provides a boost to exactly one of the two modifiers.
It makes it more complex, but I feel it's within acceptable parameters. It also accomplishes the goal of making to-hit slightly less dependent on how much you cheesed your prime stat at 1st level, which is a desirable outcome.
Another thing: Make each individual ability score more appealing outside of class features. Strength is carrying capacity, which is occasionally relevant depending on DM style, but it could do more. Dex is one of the two in 4e which is, I feel, sufficiently relevant. It modifies init, which no other stat can do (without special feats). Con is the other one. It directly affects HP, which in turn affects surge value, and it also affects total surges available. Both Dex and Con are good for everybody. Int, Wis, and Cha are just good for skills--and training/feat bonuses/item bonuses/background bonuses/power bonuses can sometimes overshadow the relevance of an ability score.
(Personally, I truly lament the drop in relevance of the int stat. I might want to play a smart fighter, a smart cleric, a smart rogue... there's almost no reason to. It's heavily dis-optimized to do so! One trained skill per two points of int is too much in 4e so I'm not sure what I'd do with it, but surely it can accomplish something...)
I think more, not less, boosts to ability scores are in order. Perhaps vary up the number of scores you can boost, too.
2nd: Any 1 score
3rd: Any 1 score you didn't boost at 2nd
5th: Any 2 scores
6th: Any 1 score you didn't boost at 5th
8th: Any 2 scores
9th: Any 2 score you didn't boost at 8th
11th: All 6 scores
[repeat from 2nd, adding 10 to the level]
etc. This way, if you assume players boost their best score, followed by their next-best, etc etc, they will still be boosting their 3rd-relevant and 4th-relevant scores, as opposed to 4e in which most everyone boosts the same 2 scores for all x4th/x8th level boosts. (or all but one if you started with odd numbers.)
The thing that I think 4th ed AND 5th ed could benefit from is a way to integrate role-play more into the game. It's still rather separate, in my opinion and I think that what they need is a system or template to make good RP count mechanically.
Say your character is a burly fighter. In your character's story, he ends up being in the party with a feisty lady-cleric. Things go in a certain direction and one day, while journeying to the next town, he realizes that he's taken a shine to her. Excellent, right?
Now, the player of this fighter really integrates this and his character's care for this character makes him fight especially hard when she is in danger and he works to protect her. So, because of this, when his lady is involved, he gets a +1 morale bonus to AC and is allowed a free move to intercept and take the damage she is about to receive.
That would come into effect through role play. Perhaps there could be many suggested abilities listed in the Dungeon Master's Guide under various topics, or perhaps it could be a book unto itself. The various topics could be anything from love to sworn enemies, from clumsiness to overconfidence, from ugliness to overwhelming good looks, etc etc.
This is a Role Playing Game and it seems like, despite our efforts, most of the content in the books are combat focused (Although, that being said, Wizards is doing a GREAT job putting fluff and flavor into the writing. Huge props for that, all!). Most of all things I could ask for, I would ask for that. It would enhance the flavor of stories, it would give incentive to make interesting characters, especially for those players who shy away from RP.
Amongst other options for those kinds of abilities, perhaps there could be a few templates for creating more abilities for things that will, undoubtedly be missed so that the DM will have a guide to help with balance issues.
Thanks for thinking about my idea. I hope they are able to use it!
~Paintknight
P.S. - Check out the sig. Great place!
Call it the slaughter of sacred cows, but I would do without enhancement bonuses to hit and damage for weapons, armor, shields, neck-slot items, and implements. Basically, this would turn magic items into devices you would seek for their function, rather than a requirement for characters to be on par with monsters of corresponding levels.
That would be cool. Not D&D, but very cool. :-)
Unless another friend buys a large 5e collection and hands it over, I wouldn't even pick up a free phb off the bus if I found one. Give me 10-15 years and then I might look into a new edition, maybe.
Now see what you did, my 3.5 collection is giving me dirty looks.
Not to be a constant voice of negativity, BUT:P 4e is just now starting to lose its baby teeth. I don't even want to think about 5e yet. Infact, I wouldn't even purchase 5e anytime soon. I wasn't going to even look at 4e, but I got my friends collection for free because he's moving and can't take it with him, so thats the only reason I decided to get into it.
Unless another friend buys a large 5e collection and hands it over, I wouldn't even pick up a free phb off the bus if I found one. Give me 10-15 years and then I might look into a new edition, maybe.
Now see what you did, my 3.5 collection is giving me dirty looks.
4E will be so unbalanced in about 5 years, that they will need to put out 5E. Judging by the rate that power creep is entering the books and how fast they are putting out new material. Seriously about 5 years.
4E will be so unbalanced in about 5 years, that they will need to put out 5E. Judging by the rate that power creep is entering the books and how fast they are putting out new material. Seriously about 5 years.
That is silly. Based on WotC' s past edition they don't make new ones just because of balance; otherwise they would of made one right after the 3.0 PHB1.
4E will be so unbalanced in about 5 years, that they will need to put out 5E. Judging by the rate that power creep is entering the books and how fast they are putting out new material. Seriously about 5 years.
Power creep is not actually a problem, so long as everything creeps up at the same rate. If everyone does twice as much damage in 5 years, and everything also has twice as many hit points, is that power creep?
And, also, they DO constantly release Errata. ;)
They can claim all they want to that "we made level 1 characters characters!" all they want but frankly other than durability, they still got it WRONG.
1. Characters, at Level 1 should have Utility, and a second Encounter power.
Have the second Encounter be a more tactical power. Right now, At wills and Dailies have an odd little thing going about them for the most part, they each provide different uses depending on the situation. There isn't a moment where it's ALWAYS better for example to Tide of Iron, or Cleave, there's times when frankly you are going to do one or the other.
Encounters on the other hand have alot of "This is X power but better!" going on for Martial Classes, and then you get some powers in the same slot as DPR powers. Such as Reckless Strike to, Steel Serpent Dance *or whatever the level 3 version is*.
That shouldn't be a "choice" in that manner. A character should have the option to pick up a "**** you and take 1000 damage" power AND a more tactically minded power.
2. They should also, have gotten rid of the Daily Mechanic.
It's stupid and inane. and frankly it's never been a good idea. "BUT HOLY GYGAX DICATES!" and yeah, he's dead and his Edition has been dead for more than 20 years now.
"Daily" powers should function on a Milestone Recharge mechanic. When you reach a Milestone, choose one of your Spent Milestone Powers, that power recharges. It's balanced, and gets people to use their full suite of powers without the Padded Sumo Effect being necessary. *because they won't suddenly Unload on one "boss" monster* It also makes a hell of alot more sense than "well suddenly I can't do this because... er.. I'm stupid until I rest for six hours?" This also helps put the Five Minute Workday syndrome into the dirt where it belongs. I realize I'm smarter than Wizards *usually ahead of D&D by about five years it seems :P * but I mean come on, I thought of that one almost immediately after my first night of playing KOTS, BEFORE the Phb was even released.
It was bloody obvious to me, and the other dm, and the other players. We all agreed to that rule and went with it, after we finished KOTS.
3. More Racial powers, Races still don't really matter enough for my tastes.
These additional powers and abilities could function on the exact same Mechanic as Magic Item Dailies. *infact I've ripped Magic Items out of AV, and ported them over to various races* It works just fine really. Hell as long as they are on par with Magic Item dailies in terms of power you don't even really have to tweak anything. These abilities are picked up through Racial Feats.
4. Make Feats Matter again. I find it strange how they went all half assed on feats. I really do. Feats really don't matter enough for your character in my opinion. Bring back things like Spelltouched feats etc. Also, Feats like "I LEARNED TO CRIT BETTER!" are [i]NOT[/i] Epic feats. I'm sorry but when my Fighter is a Demi God of War, I think he should have learned to crit 5% better way way back, not when he's all but turned into a deity.
Call it the slaughter of sacred cows, but I would do without enhancement bonuses to hit and damage for weapons, armor, shields, neck-slot items, and implements. Basically, this would turn magic items into devices you would seek for their function, rather than a requirement for characters to be on par with monsters of corresponding levels.
1. Very well said, and I completely agree.
2. Pool all powers together into heroic, paragon, or epic tiers in a similar manner to feats instead of having them specifically tied to 1st, 2nd, 3rd level.
3. Get rid of the daily mechanic.
4. Either create a menu of options for class features or convert class features into powers.
5. Have fewer, broader classes.
The important thing with a flaw system is that you have to make sure that the flaw is balanced against the benefit it buys you. Also you must place a limit on the number of flaws a character can take and gain a bonus for.
Aracnophobia, and most phobias in general, aren't severe enough flaws.
Re-work the combat math accross all levels such that the average role required for a character to hit a monster (and vice versa) is approximately 8.
Why? The original 4e design, which makes monsters harder to hit as characters level, creates encounters that are more frustrating then difficult. On average, attacks should hit more often then they miss. Certain enemies may have the gimmick of hard to hit defenses, but this should be an exception built into the stats of individual monsters, not just the assumed norm for any level range.
Divorce to-hit bonuses and defenses from ability scores. Base these numbers instead on set values by level, and let race and class choices supply some slight variations. A character's stats would affect the damage they deal with powers, and the secondary rider benefits of them, but would not modify their chances of hitting in the first place, or the enemy's chances of hitting them.
Why? The current stat-based to hit system causes all sorts of annoyances in 4e. At the moment every character, no matter what, is going to have at least one defense that is automatically hit by any enemy that targets it from late paragon on. Also, certain multiclasses just don't work because ability based attacks mean you won't be able to hit. Worse, certain classes suffer multiple fail defenses simply due to the misfortune of having their primary and secondary stats in the same defense. Better to avoid this issue outright. Let stats effect the power of your attacks through damage and rider bonuses, and let them affect your skill totals, but keep them out of the to-hit equation, on either end.
Remove item enhancement bonuses on to-hit roles and defenses. A +5 sword deals 5 more damage, but does not grant a +5 to hit.
Why? This makes magic items good to have, but no longer required to function. The fewer things you have messing up your to-hit formula the better. We've already seen enough patch feats out of this in 4e, lets keep it simple in 5e.
Stat Implements out as Weapons. Indicate how many hands they use, whether they can be use off-handed, give them a proficiency bonus and a standard damage die. Treat implement proficiency the way weapon proficiency is treated - ie: if you are proficient with an implement then you can use it with any implement powers that don't specify otherwise.
Why? This lets implement users make the same kind of choices that weapon users make when deciding on what tool to wield, and goes a long way towards standardizing power formats. This also avoids the problems of NAD's generally not trailing behind AC the way they're supposed to. A lot of pointless confusion is avoided by using the same proficiency rules as well.
Eh, those are just some thoughts off the top of my head of things I'd like to see change in 5e.
Perhaps this could be worked into utility powers, perhaps it could be an entirely new type of thing you can select at occasional levels, or perhaps it could be just be hardwired into class descriptions.
The closest things now to this are a handful of PP and ED features, and, any at-will utility power. Rogues seem to have the most at-will utilities available from what I've seen. "Move your speed while still stealthed!" That's part of a utility, but it's basically equivalent to having the same thing in a class feature. In my mind, all classes should have those options, in abundance.
More "always-on" class features. Particularly, ones gained as the character rises in level.
Perhaps this could be worked into utility powers, perhaps it could be an entirely new type of thing you can select at occasional levels, or perhaps it could be just be hardwired into class descriptions.
The closest things now to this are a handful of PP and ED features, and, any at-will utility power. Rogues seem to have the most at-will utilities available from what I've seen. "Move your speed while still stealthed!" That's part of a utility, but it's basically equivalent to having the same thing in a class feature. In my mind, all classes should have those options, in abundance.
I love at-will utilities, like the ones rogues have. I would definitely like to see more of these for all classes.
Re-work the combat math accross all levels such that the average role required for a character to hit a monster (and vice versa) is approximately 8.
Why? The original 4e design, which makes monsters harder to hit as characters level, creates encounters that are more frustrating then difficult. On average, attacks should hit more often then they miss. Certain enemies may have the gimmick of hard to hit defenses, but this should be an exception built into the stats of individual monsters, not just the assumed norm for any level range.
Personally, I don't like this idea. I think the average attack should hit on a 10 or 11. If it hits on a 10, that's a 55% chance of hitting. If you reduce it down to 8 then it's a 65% chance, which is too high IMHO. I like the suspense of rolling my die and wondering whether or not it will hit, and making it easier to hit reduces that suspense.
However, you are right that the relationship between your attack bonuses and the monsters' defenses gets a bit wonky as you level up. They should have kept the relationship constant, rather than increasing monsters' defenses faster than your attack bonuses increase.
Remove item enhancement bonuses on to-hit roles and defenses. A +5 sword deals 5 more damage, but does not grant a +5 to hit.
Why? This makes magic items good to have, but no longer required to function. The fewer things you have messing up your to-hit formula the better. We've already seen enough patch feats out of this in 4e, lets keep it simple in 5e.
I agree with you. It would be nice if magic items were supplementary, rather than mandatory. Make magic items special and wondrous in 5e. It would be cool if we had characters that had only one or two really special magic items, rather than a bunch of common mundane ones. For example, Arthur had only Excalibur, and it was a very memorable weapon.
Stat Implements out as Weapons. Indicate how many hands they use, whether they can be use off-handed, give them a proficiency bonus and a standard damage die. Treat implement proficiency the way weapon proficiency is treated - ie: if you are proficient with an implement then you can use it with any implement powers that don't specify otherwise.
Why? This lets implement users make the same kind of choices that weapon users make when deciding on what tool to wield, and goes a long way towards standardizing power formats. This also avoids the problems of NAD's generally not trailing behind AC the way they're supposed to. A lot of pointless confusion is avoided by using the same proficiency rules as well.
I agree you on this point. In my opening post I also suggested the same thing for implements.
4E will be so unbalanced in about 5 years, that they will need to put out 5E. Judging by the rate that power creep is entering the books and how fast they are putting out new material. Seriously about 5 years.
Thats why we houserule things to fix problems until offical Errata. Other people might need the offical rules in the book to be perfect to enjoy the game, but I don't thanks to houseruling and Errata. I can still enjoy 1 and 2e and 3.5 so I will have no problem enjoying 4e long after this forum no longer supports the edition as its main focus.
I love at-will utilities, like the ones rogues have. I would definitely like to see more of these for all classes.
Personally, I don't like this idea. I think the average attack should hit on a 10 or 11. If it hits on a 10, that's a 55% chance of hitting. If you reduce it down to 8 then it's a 65% chance, which is too high IMHO. I like the suspense of rolling my die and wondering whether or not it will hit, and making it easier to hit reduces that suspense.
However, you are right that the relationship between your attack bonuses and the monsters' defenses gets a bit wonky as you level up. They should have kept the relationship constant, rather than increasing monsters' defenses faster than your attack bonuses increase.
I agree with you. It would be nice if magic items were supplementary, rather than mandatory. Make magic items special and wondrous in 5e. It would be cool if we had characters that had only one or two really special magic items, rather than a bunch of common mundane ones. For example, Arthur had only Excalibur, and it was a very memorable weapon.
I agree you on this point. In my opening post I also suggested the same thing for implements.
Actually Arthur had Excalibur, the sword in the stone (separate swords in the original tale), Scintillating armor (colorchanging armor), a sheathe that wouldn't let him be cut, the holy grail, and a couple of other things I can't remember, but you have to go back to the original book to find all of them.
Have each race and class have several at-will, encounter, utility and daily powers for each couple of levels, maybe race powers every odd level and class powers every even level. At first level the character gets 4 at-wills, 4 encounter, and 4 dailies to choose from, as they level up instead of gaining more they trade existing ones out for more powerful ones. This way not only do they have more choices, they are not left beating a level 7 monster to death with a level 1 at-will power for 36 rounds.
This would also make race matter more as some of your power choices would come from race. It would also allow players to use very powerful races, because they wouldn't get those super powerful powers until much later. At-will powers would be traded out every level or so and become better to keep up with the monsters they are fighting. It would also standardize and simplify things much more.
Also fold all of those new classes into four core classes. If you want to be a barbarian, monk, or warlord, choose the fighter class choose the barbarian class feature, and grab powers that complement it. Same for the others. This way you end up with four initial classes: fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard. In the expansion books introduce new class features that allow you to be something else. If you want to be an assassin, too bad....no just kidding pick rogue and grab the assassin class feature set and powers that complement it.
Also I agree with other posters quit nerfing feats. Make them matter again. Don't give bonuses in feats, give enhancements to class features, race features, powers, and skills. A feat that gives you +2 in a very specific situation is almost worthless. A feat that lets you add the fire keyword to any at-will power is nice.
Get rid of this hybrid nerf crap. Also toss the current feat based multi-class system. Create a new multi-class system that allows you to pick and choose class features. If you want a fighters armor proficiency and the ability to use magic go for it, you will be splitting your powers between two classes anyway and you'll do worse than either, because your primary ability scores will be lower. So you'll have less chance to hit, and you'll do less damage.
Also get rid of the power creep. Someone on these boards said its not bad to have power creep as long as they all creep at the same time. This is still wrong. It requires for players to own every book and dragon magazine article in order to balance. To some this might sound fun, but to people like me that are short on time, it just means looking more stuff up to have the same amount of fun. Its really just not worth it. Also come out with one well tested and implemented balanced non-power creeped expansion per year that includes features for all aspects of the game. I can handle 1 book at $39.85 per year, I can't handle one book a month at $19.95 all year.
I can't think of anything else right now because a lack of sleep. Goodnight y'all.
Also get rid of the power creep. Someone on these boards said its not bad to have power creep as long as they all creep at the same time. This is still wrong. It requires for players to own every book and dragon magazine article in order to balance. To some this might sound fun, but to people like me that are short on time, it just means looking more stuff up to have the same amount of fun. Its really just not worth it. Also come out with one well tested and implemented balanced non-power creeped expansion per year that includes features for all aspects of the game. I can handle 1 book at $39.85 per year, I can't handle one book a month at $19.95 all year.
Eh, I can see both sides on this one. You make good points, but I'd offer in response two things:
- You don't have to own the books to use rules from them. Granted, it helps if someone at the table owns it, but even if no one in the room owns Divine Power, it's easy enough to make use of something from it. "Hey, I want the Sun Domain feat. Yeah, it gives me +2 to Religion and my Sun Strike makes enemies have vulnerable radiant 3 for a turn."
- Power creep will almost necessarily arise from giving characters more options. There is no wis/cha race in PHB. That combo would arguably be best for laser clerics. There is a wis/cha race in Eberron. Suddenly, laser clerics experience 'power creep.' What's the alternative, never give anything that isn't already expressed in the core book? Always make splatbook options "cost" double what they give?
Power creep, in my opinion, is the publishing of options that are blatantly better than things that were published earlier. For example, if they have a power in the PHB that does 2[W] damage and is very good for it's level, and then they publish a power in splatbook X that does 2[W] damage and stuns, then you have a problem since the earlier options are no longer acceptable choices.
Eh, I can see both sides on this one. You make good points, but I'd offer in response two things:
- You don't have to own the books to use rules from them. Granted, it helps if someone at the table owns it, but even if no one in the room owns Divine Power, it's easy enough to make use of something from it. "Hey, I want the Sun Domain feat. Yeah, it gives me +2 to Religion and my Sun Strike makes enemies have vulnerable radiant 3 for a turn."
- Power creep will almost necessarily arise from giving characters more options. There is no wis/cha race in PHB. That combo would arguably be best for laser clerics. There is a wis/cha race in Eberron. Suddenly, laser clerics experience 'power creep.' What's the alternative, never give anything that isn't already expressed in the core book? Always make splatbook options "cost" double what they give?
No you balance it out by designing each class to expect players to use the most optimized build. That is to say if a class uses wis/cha then expect a player somewhere in the future to get an 18 wis and 18 cha, and then base everything around balancing that out, then test it with all the available feats.
When you add a feat, power, or other game mechanic you must test it with any and all available feats, powers, and other game mechanics to see what kind of ranges you'll get. This can be automated by a simple computer program based off of the design of the Character Builder.
An example would be a feat and a power. Say the feat doubles your damage on a crit. Say the power deals 3[w] damage and increases the threat range of criting to 18-20. That increases the amount of damage by over 120% so it would be unbalanced. So either the feat has to go or the power, or both.
I don't think the Kalashtar example is a case of power creep. Unless the Kalashtar race is overall better than the previous races overall, it's fine with me if it has +Cha and +Wis. In this case it is just a race that is well-suited for the laser cleric niche.
Power creep, in my opinion, is the publishing of options that are blatantly better than things that were published earlier. For example, if they have a power in the PHB that does 2[W] damage and is very good for it's level, and then they publish a power in splatbook X that does 2[W] damage and stuns, then you have a problem since the earlier options are no longer acceptable choices.
I agree with this assessment. That is literally what we are seeing in the expansion books. Originally the Warlock was touted as the arcane striker that could deal damage like the rogue or ranger. After they released the Sorcerer the warlock took on a more controller type role. In other words simple power creep. For dealing damage the sorcerer is better than the Warlock.
This is exactly why they need to say powers at [X] level can do [Y] to [Z] damage, and trade [i] damage to do [J], [K], or [L] effects. Then when expansions come out they have to work within that system. There is no bloat, and no creep. A class/race from X splat book can take on a core elf/ranger and come out even.
I agree with this assessment. That is literally what we are seeing in the expansion books. Originally the Warlock was touted as the arcane striker that could deal damage like the rogue or ranger. After they released the Sorcerer the warlock took on a more controller type role. In other words simple power creep. For dealing damage the sorcerer is better than the Warlock.
...The warlock was exactly the same as it was before the sorcerer came out as after. It didn't change. It didn't get outstripped by the sorcerer through power creep. The warlock always had a healthy helping of controller powers. Everything from forcing people around the field to awesome debuffs.
So really, the sorcerer isn't a 'better' version of a warlock unless you can only judge a class by it's direct damage potential.
Also, somebody suggested you could use powers and feats out of books you don't own. That's silly. If nobody in your gaming group owns certain books, you can play without them and nobody at the table will have the perceived advantage over anybody else at the table. Problem solved.
The most important advance from 2nd edition to 3.X was replacing THAc0 and negative AC with d20 to hit rolls and high AC.
The most important advances from 3.X to 4e were giving all classes (roughly) equal power levels, and ditching the TERRIBLY abusive magic item creation rules.
I think the biggest problem that lingers in 4e is that magic to hit bonuses are still neccessary at high level. I think the whole concept of magic weapons needs to reworked from the ground level in 5th edition, with the whole concept of magic to hit bonuses removed. Magic weapons should grant special damage effects, but not to hit bonuses.
...The warlock was exactly the same as it was before the sorcerer came out as after. It didn't change. It didn't get outstripped by the sorcerer through power creep. The warlock always had a healthy helping of controller powers. Everything from forcing people around the field to awesome debuffs.
So really, the sorcerer isn't a 'better' version of a warlock unless you can only judge a class by it's direct damage potential.
Since both the warlock and sorcerer are touted as 'strikers' this means they are meant to deal damage (at least according to the core books). This is what I was basing their comparison to. Also the sorcerer has an equal number of debuffs and they can move whole groups around the field. So its still a better class overall.
Also, somebody suggested you could use powers and feats out of books you don't own. That's silly. If nobody in your gaming group owns certain books, you can play without them and nobody at the table will have the perceived advantage over anybody else at the table. Problem solved.
Except you won't know what the powers are unless you have access to the books. Unless of course you have a subscription to DDI, or you sit in your local game shop and copy pages out of the books. Even then only the people with a DDI account will have the most up to date information on their characters potential, so they will be overpowered compared to the rest of the group.
Okay, here's what I think, as if anyone really cared. :P
The most important advance from 2nd edition to 3.X was replacing THAc0 and negative AC with d20 to hit rolls and high AC.
The most important advances from 3.X to 4e were giving all classes (roughly) equal power levels, and ditching the TERRIBLY abusive magic item creation rules.
I think the biggest problem that lingers in 4e is that magic to hit bonuses are still neccessary at high level. I think the whole concept of magic weapons needs to reworked from the ground level in 5th edition, with the whole concept of magic to hit bonuses removed. Magic weapons should grant special damage effects, but not to hit bonuses.
I agree, limit the bonus to a +1 or +2 and end it there. That's about equal to what a utility power or feat would give you anyway. On the other hand they could keep it the same and only apply the bonus when you use one of the items powers.
I think the biggest problem that lingers in 4e is that magic to hit bonuses are still neccessary at high level. I think the whole concept of magic weapons needs to reworked from the ground level in 5th edition, with the whole concept of magic to hit bonuses removed. Magic weapons should grant special damage effects, but not to hit bonuses.
They have always given this bonus! and if it wasn't a to hit bonus it was to damage, although the bonus to both solved a great deal of confusion over this!!
if anything, we will have 4.1 and 4.2 ( I don't think wizards will do another total revision like that mishap from 3.5 to 4e... since the staff that did 3.5 would have stopped and helped do 4e instead)that might fix part if that issue, but there are still some 3rd party games that you can use to supplement your needs for most of these fix's
I would personally love to see a magic item creation system that feels and looks more like the current encounter builder!!!
but I miss Thac0 trying to hit someone with a -8 was hard!! hard as heck!!
They have always given this bonus! and if it wasn't a to hit bonus it was to damage, although the bonus to both solved a great deal of confusion over this!!
if anything, we will have 4.1 and 4.2 ( I don't think wizards will do another total revision like that mishap from 3.5 to 4e... since the staff that did 3.5 would have stopped and helped do 4e instead)that might fix part if that issue, but there are still some 3rd party games that you can use to supplement your needs for most of these fix's
I would personally love to see a magic item creation system that feels and looks more like the current encounter builder!!!
but I miss Thac0 trying to hit someone with a -8 was hard!! hard as heck!!
They won't do a 4.x because of the uproar it caused in 3.0 to 3.5. They will instead wait for 4E to become way to overpowered and unstable and then simply make a 5E. They will also update to 5E faster because they are now in it for the money (regardless of how you look at it). My estimate of 5 years still stands.
They won't do a 4.x because of the uproar it caused in 3.0 to 3.5. They will instead wait for 4E to become way to overpowered and unstable and then simply make a 5E. They will also update to 5E faster because they are now in it for the money (regardless of how you look at it). My estimate of 5 years still stands.
LOL They have always been in it for the money. It's a business. A company must make profit to stay afloat. No profit=no money to pay employees=no more D&D.
But yea, I doubt we will see something like 3.5e. It was a pretty stupid decision to do that, since the changes between 3e and 3.5e were so minor and not worth publishing a whole new set of books for.
When it's time to do a new edition, I'm sure that they will do a full revamp rather than a little change here and there like that stupid shift from 3e to 3.5e.
Since both the warlock and sorcerer are touted as 'strikers' this means they are meant to deal damage (at least according to the core books). This is what I was basing their comparison to. Also the sorcerer has an equal number of debuffs and they can move whole groups around the field. So its still a better class overall.
I'm just gonna tell you that you clearly don't understand what the roles are and it's pointless for me to try and explain them to you. You wouldn't listen anyway. As for your opinion of the sorcerer, go take that up with the people in the striker forum. I don't care enough to express to you how completely subjective that is.
I agree, limit the bonus to a +1 or +2 and end it there. That's about equal to what a utility power or feat would give you anyway. On the other hand they could keep it the same and only apply the bonus when you use one of the items powers.
I like the idea what you are saying about removing the to-hit and damage bonuses of weapons. You will need to do the same to armor. There is a model for this currently in 4E the item is called a Shield.
I'm just gonna tell you that you clearly don't understand what the roles are and it's pointless for me to try and explain them to you. You wouldn't listen anyway. As for your opinion of the sorcerer, go take that up with the people in the striker forum. I don't care enough to express to you how completely subjective that is.
Actually you seem to be the one that doesn't understand the roles properly so I'll just quote from the PHB and hope an ORC doesn't see it. PHB 16 on roles:
"Striker ( Ranger, Rogue, Warlock) strikers specialize in dealing high amounts of damage to a single target at a time. They have the most concentrated offense of any character in the game. Strikers rely on superior mobility, trickery, or magic to move around tough foes and single out the enemy they want to attack."
Now what part of high damage dealer don't you understand? The sorcerer not only consistently deals more damage to enemies, they deal damage to more enemies at one time than a warlock.
I like the idea what you are saying about removing the to-hit and damage bonuses of weapons. You will need to do the same to armor. There is a model for this currently in 4E the item is called a Shield.
yes, I might have to try this out, of course I'd have to remove the difficulty of monsters and come up with my own defenses based on average to-hit per level.
Actually you seem to be the one that doesn't understand the roles properly so I'll just quote from the PHB and hope an ORC doesn't see it. PHB 16 on roles:
"Striker ( Ranger, Rogue, Warlock) strikers specialize in dealing high amounts of damage to a single target at a time. They have the most concentrated offense of any character in the game. Strikers rely on superior mobility, trickery, or magic to move around tough foes and single out the enemy they want to attack."
Now what part of high damage dealer don't you understand? The sorcerer not only consistently deals more damage to enemies, they deal damage to more enemies at one time than a warlock.
You just completely proved my point for me.
Edit: I found a moment to elaborate.
The conclusion you've come to is similar to deciding that a Chevy Trailblazer is a better SUV than a GMC Yukon because the generally excepted definition of SUV involves 4WD and the trailblazer comes standard with 4WD while the Yukon does not. Therefore, the Yukon is garbage.
The problem with that assertion is that SUV is just a generic marketing term. Same with the roles. Truth is, the warlock just doesn't deal as much damage and kinda functions like a controller a lot of the time, but it's not power creep! The sorcerer is just a distinct new class. Only thing you could say is straight up better about the sorcerer is that it's hands down easier and more straightforward to use and doesn't require any kind of hassle-y set up like the curse/boon challenge.
You just completely proved my point for me.
Edit: I found a moment to elaborate.
The conclusion you've come to is similar to deciding that a Chevy Trailblazer is a better SUV than a GMC Yukon because the generally excepted definition of SUV involves 4WD and the trailblazer comes standard with 4WD while the Yukon does not. Therefore, the Yukon is garbage.
The problem with that assertion is that SUV is just a generic marketing term. Same with the roles. Truth is, the warlock just doesn't deal as much damage and kinda functions like a controller a lot of the time, but it's not power creep! The sorcerer is just a distinct new class. Only thing you could say is straight up better about the sorcerer is that it's hands down easier and more straightforward to use and doesn't require any kind of hassle-y set up like the curse/boon challenge.
Did they redefine the warlock as a controller? I'll look into that real quick. Nope according to the compendium they are still a striker. So as a striker class they are inferior to the sorcerer. Now do I have to be any clearer or do you want to see numbers and power comparisons.
Did they redefine the warlock as a controller? I'll look into that real quick. Nope according to the compendium they are still a striker. So as a striker class they are inferior to the sorcerer. Now do I have to be any clearer or do you want to see numbers and power comparisons.
Except that all classes have a smattering of another role in their class make up, and depending on how good they are at that secondary role they may end up suffering in some other areas as a result.
The warlock is a lot better at debuffing/controlling the battlefield by controlling the actions of a target than the sorcerer. The sorcerer can deal more damage. The two are not imbalanced. They are just different. That being said, both still happen to lean primarily towards being good at taking out a single important enemy, and thus both are still strikers.
Your claim is like saying that the Avenger is hands down inferior to the Rogue, because it doesn't have the same damage potential. The statement is just not true. The objective observation is (rogue/sorcerer deal more damage than the avenger/warlock), but your subjective conclusion is not.
Except that all classes have a smattering of another role in their class make up, and depending on how good they are at that secondary role they may end up suffering in some other areas as a result.
The warlock is a lot better at debuffing/controlling the battlefield by controlling the actions of a target than the sorcerer. The sorcerer can deal more damage. The two are not imbalanced. They are just different. That being said, both still happen to lean primarily towards being good at taking out a single important enemy, and thus both are still strikers.
Your claim is like saying that the Avenger is hands down inferior to the Rogue, because it doesn't have the same damage potential. The statement is just not true. The objective observation is (rogue/sorcerer deal more damage than the avenger/warlock), but your subjective conclusion is not.
First off please SBLOCK your sig.
Secondly the sorcerer also has many debuff powers. Most of these powers debuff and deal lots of damage. The only difference is that the sorcerers powers are area based and they include party members in the damage and effects most of the time. About the only thing that a warlock can do better is at the higher levels when they can pop an enemy out of existence for a few rounds, but the usefulness of this is subjective. Its akin to stunning the creature with the disadvantage of not being able to affect it in the meantime.
Really if you want a power by power breakdown, I'll do it for you.
Generic Universal Role Playing system -- G.U.R.P.S. Not a simulation game, just a role playing game designed for all kinds of genres. I played it for YEARS and YEARS. Haven't played 4th ed though.
Its a Simulation Roleplaying Game.
Meaning: Its much grittier than other systems (Palladium/DnD)
Has a more intense character creation.
Includes flaws.
Rarely has a combat focus reward mechanism
DnD: At best has number 3 in 3.X. Its a minor pet peeve of mine that people all it 'simulation' in 3.X when its not. Not even close.
GURPS quirk system...is useful with the right calibre of players, the reality is, the majority of DnD players are um...less focused on the characters and more focused on combat.
What I was hoping though was for people to suggest their OWN changes/additions to 4e, not just critique mine.
Right now, I don't have much in way of suggestion, and as 4E Is two years old, I am not expecting anything new in way of editions for a while anyway, so it doesn't need my input.
First off please SBLOCK your sig.
My sig is within the allowed size. Also, the WotC forums only allow it to show up once per page. On this post, for example, my sig should not show up. Thus, I would rather not sblock it. The reason I have a sig in the first place is to advertise what I have placed in it, not to hide in in an sblock. If you hate sigs, there is an option to hide them in your settings.
Really if you want a power by power breakdown, I'll do it for you.
That's quite alright. I own the PHB 1, PHB 2, and Arcane Power. I have seen the powers for myself. I disagree with your conclusions. I think the Warlock is every bit as effective as the sorcerer. I am also far from the only person who feels this way. In fact, I prefer to play warlocks over sorcerers. I doubt you are going to convince me otherwise, so I wouldn't go through the effort of a power by power breakdown if I were you. If you want to, you are free to provide a power by power breakdown that compares every warlock power to every sorcerer power... but it just seems like a lot of unnecessary work for you.
My sig is within the allowed size. Also, the WotC forums only allow it to show up once per page. On this post, for example, my sig should not show up. Thus, I would rather not sblock it. The reason I have a sig in the first place is to advertise what I have placed in it, not to hide in in an sblock. If you hate sigs, there is an option to hide them in your settings.
I only say that because your sig is gigantic. other sigs only take up 3-5 lines, yours takes up around 12 which is about 18th of a page. I also don't want to hide the sigs because I enjoy the occasional pearl of wisdom among the chaffe. I didn't mean to hide the entire thing, just condense it down or something. It really takes up too much space.
That's quite alright. I own the PHB 1, PHB 2, and Arcane Power. I have seen the powers for myself. I disagree with your conclusions. I think the Warlock is every bit as effective as the sorcerer. I am also far from the only person who feels this way. In fact, I prefer to play warlocks over sorcerers. I doubt you are going to convince me otherwise, so I wouldn't go through the effort of a power by power breakdown if I were you. If you want to, you are free to provide a power by power breakdown that compares every warlock power to every sorcerer power... but it just seems like a lot of unnecessary work for you.
You're right what was I thinking trying to provide facts to change someones opinion. I'm sorry, I take back the offer, it really would be pointless of me. However if your interested I did post in another thread a comparison of 1st level at-will and encounter powers that you might take a glance at in case you are in the least curious. Also please note that I never said less effective, I said not as effective as a striker, big difference.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1228674
1. Add a "non-combat skill" section which has it's own number of skills to train that you can't use for combat skills. Make these skills that promote and encourage roleplaying -- knowledge skills, profession skills, dwarven mating rituals, cooking, music performance (unrelated to bardic effects), singing, dwarf tossing, etc.
Bad idea. Why?
1) Useless.
2) Extraneous.
3) Negatively impacts RP.
4) Restricts RP (its not in there, thus people won't think you can do it/won't allow it)
2. Add a set of "reverse-feats" or disadvantages which promote roleplaying by introducing "defects" in the character -- fear of spiders, fear of 3.5e vs. 4e threads, fear of the dark, delusion that the world is hollow and he's touched the sky, etc. Basically minor and major disadvantages that get you ... something. Maybe the major ones get you the ability to get another bonus feat. Maybe the minor ones get you a point to spend on attributes. Allow only 1 or 2 disadvantages -- don't want to go too far with this.
Bad idea. Why? Because penalties like these do not balance out bonuses unless they directly counteract them, and everyone will take the two weakest drawbacks with the least impact so they can PG it up.
Quirks like these should be roleplayed, not sought after for mechanical advantage. Period.
3. Add an integrated rule for thrown oil, holy water, and other grenade like missiles -- splash weapons and non magical area affect missiles.
These are already in the rules.
4. Maybe an updated d20 modern setting?
Bring back Alternity, a much better system? :P
Anyway...
What would I like to see in 5th edition?
1) Removal of +x items. They are unnecessary and screw up the game's math; all magic items should be more like the slotless items, which makes them more balanced.
2) Removal of nonuniform ability score increases. They are unnecessary and screw up the game's math.
3) Make magic item daily powers either more uniform in power level, or make them cue off of slots rather than overall body; say, you use your weapon slot magic item daily, you can't use any other weapon slot magic item daily that day.
4) Change rest mechanics so that it is not advantageous to take an extended rest at pretty much all times. Either make it so magic items/powers get powered up after you pass a milestone (probably the best idea), don't recharge daily powers after an extended rest, don't hand out action points after an extended rest but only on a per milestone basis, or something else or some combination of the above.
5) Reduce variability in number of healing surges. As-is, some characters are very prone to running out and forcing the party to rest or having to stand in the back and shoot their bow - rangers and rogues have this issue particularly. While theoretically this should force them to play more conservatively, in practice the extended rest mechanic (as well as what the game otherwise encourages mechanically) doesn't allow it to work this way.
6) A better skill challenge mechanic. Force everyone to make rolls to contribute; no aid another, no sitting out. Change the mechanic so it is more interesting and interactive with the party.
7) Type everything. Seriously.
There's a lot more, but that's the obvious stuff. My other suggestions are more radical.
3) Make magic item daily powers either more uniform in power level, or make them cue off of slots rather than overall body; say, you use your weapon slot magic item daily, you can't use any other weapon slot magic item daily that day.
I think this would unbalance the game even more. some players would have 10 dailies from various items and class, and others would have 4. Very unbalanced.
4) Change rest mechanics so that it is not advantageous to take an extended rest at pretty much all times. Either make it so magic items/powers get powered up after you pass a milestone (probably the best idea), don't recharge daily powers after an extended rest, don't hand out action points after an extended rest but only on a per milestone basis, or something else or some combination of the above.
This is easiest to fix simply throw a rule in that says "A character gains no benefit from an extended rest unless 16 hours have passed since the previous extended rest that character has taken.".
5) Reduce variability in number of healing surges. As-is, some characters are very prone to running out and forcing the party to rest or having to stand in the back and shoot their bow - rangers and rogues have this issue particularly. While theoretically this should force them to play more conservatively, in practice the extended rest mechanic (as well as what the game otherwise encourages mechanically) doesn't allow it to work this way.
I think it would balance out if they let healers heal without using up surges (except maybe the paladin that gets 20 surges at first level), all other things like potions or non-healer powers would heal using surges.
6) A better skill challenge mechanic. Force everyone to make rolls to contribute; no aid another, no sitting out. Change the mechanic so it is more interesting and interactive with the party.
7) Type everything. Seriously.
There's a lot more, but that's the obvious stuff. My other suggestions are more radical.
I already have a better skill challenge mechanic that I am going to release by the first of next month if all goes well. Look for Friar's Almanac on www.drivethrurpg.com after the first of next month for how to do it.
Typing everything would only solve some of the problems. Typing everything and having definitions for everything, then letting lawyers look over the rules for possible loopholes would solve a lot more.
I only say that because your sig is gigantic. other sigs only take up 3-5 lines, yours takes up around 12 which is about 18th of a page. I also don't want to hide the sigs because I enjoy the occasional pearl of wisdom among the chaffe. I didn't mean to hide the entire thing, just condense it down or something. It really takes up too much space.
You're right what was I thinking trying to provide facts to change someones opinion. I'm sorry, I take back the offer, it really would be pointless of me. However if your interested I did post in another thread a comparison of 1st level at-will and encounter powers that you might take a glance at in case you are in the least curious. Also please note that I never said less effective, I said not as effective as a striker, big difference.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1228674
I agree with you that the Sorcerer fulfills the Striker role, which is to deal high damage, better than the Warlock. Warlock is certainly a less effective Striker. However, as the other poster pointed out, the Warlock has a splash of controller, more so than the Sorcerer does, and thus there is no 'power creep'. There would be if the Sorcerer both outperforms Warlock in damage as well as controllerish things; then the Sorcerer has made the Warlock obsolete. This is Power Creep(tm).
So if you want to deal more damage as a striker, go with Sorcerer. If you want to deal some good damage but also have some neato secondary Controller stuff, go Warlock. No power creep, both effective in some way, and ta~da.
I agree with you that the Sorcerer fulfills the Striker role, which is to deal high damage, better than the Warlock. Warlock is certainly a less effective Striker. However, as the other poster pointed out, the Warlock has a splash of controller, more so than the Sorcerer does, and thus there is no 'power creep'. There would be if the Sorcerer both outperforms Warlock in damage as well as controllerish things; then the Sorcerer has made the Warlock obsolete. This is Power Creep(tm).
So if you want to deal more damage as a striker, go with Sorcerer. If you want to deal some good damage but also have some neato secondary Controller stuff, go Warlock. No power creep, both effective in some way, and ta~da.
Yup, I totally agree. In fact I don't see significant power creep in the game at all. The worst you can say is that AV made some modest increases in the effectiveness of magic items. It seems to have allowed some cheese as well, but the fact is no DM has to give out any specific item and even if you deck a character out with all the best like a christmas tree the results are pretty modest.
Classes have no detectable power creep at all. The 4e designers have gotten more adept at making classes and the PHB2 classes are a bit more sophisticated in how they work and balance out, but they are very definitely not stronger than the PHB1 classes in any overall sense. In fact if anything the PHB1 martial classes are the ones which are a bit on the strong side.
Did they redefine the warlock as a controller? I'll look into that real quick. Nope according to the compendium they are still a striker. So as a striker class they are inferior to the sorcerer. Now do I have to be any clearer or do you want to see numbers and power comparisons.
The roles, like I just said, are generic marketing terms. The warlock is a striker because it doesn't have a marking ability and would confuse the heck out of people if you called it a defender.
Your perspective on roles is so wrong, that if WotC actually meant it to be the way you say, there would only be 4 classes. One for each role. Hopefully you understand, now, why there are plenty more classes than that and you can stop being so rude and condescending.
I agree with you that the Sorcerer fulfills the Striker role, which is to deal high damage, better than the Warlock. Warlock is certainly a less effective Striker. However, as the other poster pointed out, the Warlock has a splash of controller, more so than the Sorcerer does, and thus there is no 'power creep'. There would be if the Sorcerer both outperforms Warlock in damage as well as controllerish things; then the Sorcerer has made the Warlock obsolete. This is Power Creep(tm).
So if you want to deal more damage as a striker, go with Sorcerer. If you want to deal some good damage but also have some neato secondary Controller stuff, go Warlock. No power creep, both effective in some way, and ta~da.
Ding, somebody gets it.
Power creep implies that a new class is hands down more powerful in every facet of the game. It doesn't mean that an old class is less effective at one particular "role" (by this word I specifically mean your understanding of the pigeonholed role of any given mechanical role). It doesn't mean one class less effective at dealing damage. It means that a warlock has nothing to offer to the game that a sorcerer can't do better. But, this is not the case.
The roles, like I just said, are generic marketing terms. The warlock is a striker because it doesn't have a marking ability and would confuse the heck out of people if you called it a defender.
Your perspective on roles is so wrong, that if WotC actually meant it to be the way you say, there would only be 4 classes. One for each role. Hopefully you understand, now, why there are plenty more classes than that and you can stop being so rude and condescending.
when does posting facts = condescending? I personally think the game would be better if there were only 4 classes, but that aside. The reason WotC makes more classes is not for that reason, but so WotC can sell more books. It's purely a money thing. Also my perspective on roles mirrors the definitions in the book. How are they wrong? can you point out factual fallacies in my perspective? Highly unlikely because you are on the outside and don't see my perspective.
I would call the warlocks curse a marking ability. Sure it doesn't actually mark a target, but it allows the warlock to deal extra damage if they hit, kind of like the rogue and ranger class features.
Ding, somebody gets it.
Power creep implies that a new class is hands down more powerful in every facet of the game. It doesn't mean that an old class is less effective at one particular "role" (by this word I specifically mean your understanding of the pigeonholed role of any given mechanical role). It doesn't mean one class less effective at dealing damage. It means that a warlock has nothing to offer to the game that a sorcerer can't do better. But, this is not the case.
No its only about 87% of the case. The sorcerer is a slightly worse controller than the warlock, they make up for it by controlling more targets at a time, like the wizard. So they are really still better, because the warlock is manipulating only one creature and the warlock is manipulating from 9 to 24 per round.
1 race
1 class
1 power
1 skill
1 magic item
1 monster
1 book
simplified and balanced.:P
No its only about 87% of the case. The sorcerer is a slightly worse controller than the warlock, they make up for it by controlling more targets at a time, like the wizard. So they are really still better, because the warlock is manipulating only one creature and the warlock is manipulating from 9 to 24 per round.
Yea. Except of course that Warlocks are more group friendly when controlling a battlefield, and do still get AoE powers.
Sorry, your argument rings hollow to my ears. I don't agree with you.
The future of dungeons and dragons, 10e.
1 race
1 class
1 power
1 skill
1 magic item
1 monster
1 book
simplified and balanced.:P
Race: humanoid
Class: adventurer
Power: kill
Skill: kill better
Magic Item: Kill Even Better Weapon
Monster: Dragon
Book: Adventure called Enter Dungeon and kill Dragon
I'm just gonna tell you that you clearly don't understand what the roles are and it's pointless for me to try and explain them to you. You wouldn't listen anyway. As for your opinion of the sorcerer, go take that up with the people in the striker forum. I don't care enough to express to you how completely subjective that is.
Roles are secondary!! they are a design tool!! There is more to a class than it's Role, otherwise we would only have four classes, one for each Role.
How many times do I go through this....
- Focused Fire: the fact that most warlock powers are single target makes it easier for them inflict damage and debilitating conditions on enemies without inflicting the same on allies.
- Optional Extra Damage The warlocks extra damage feature, curse, must be placed in order to deal strike grade damage. This means that the warlock has to spend extra actions to fulfill its striker role, but unlike the sorcerer it never deals striker grade damage to allies while using AOEs.
- Durability: All warlocks start with leather proficiency, while sorcerers must spend a feat. Furthermore, shadow walk makes it very easy for warlocks to apply a near constant penalty to enemy attacks against them. Finally, half of all warlock builds use CON as a primary stat, meaning warlocks can easily have more HP and more importantly surges than a sorcerer (for truly defensive warlocks the high CON also makes it easy to qualify for hide specialization, so long as they can spare the requisite STR, which need only start at 12 to qualify at paragon tier with retraining).
Now I'm not saying that the sorcerer doesn't have its own advantages. It most certainly has aspects that could be used to tout it as the better class, but to deny the warlock's distinct advantage is to not give the class it's fair due.
Three Reason the warlock could be considered a better class than the sorcerer.
- Focused Fire: the fact that most warlock powers are single target makes it easier for them inflict damage and debilitating conditions on enemies without inflicting the same on allies.
- Optional Extra Damage The warlocks extra damage feature, curse, must be placed in order to deal strike grade damage. This means that the warlock has to spend extra actions to fulfill its striker role, but unlike the sorcerer it never deals striker grade damage to allies while using AOEs.
- Durability: All warlocks start with leather proficiency, while sorcerers must spend a feat. Furthermore, shadow walk makes it very easy for warlocks to apply a near constant penalty to enemy attacks against them. Finally, half of all warlock builds use CON as a primary stat, meaning warlocks can easily have more HP and more importantly surges than a sorcerer (for truly defensive warlocks the high CON also makes it easy to qualify for hide specialization, so long as they can spare the requisite STR, which need only start at 12 to qualify at paragon tier with retraining).
Now I'm not saying that the sorcerer doesn't have its own advantages. It most certainly has aspects that could be used to tout it as the better class, but to deny the warlock's distinct advantage is to not give the class it's fair due.
Points 1 and 2 are the same and also wrong. The sorcerer has several powers that affect single targets, they deal as much or more damage, and have status effects simply look at my list in this thread http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1228674 and you'll see. In addition to this sorcerers can affect multiple targets with other powers. They also have a much higher armor class than warlocks, which is why warlocks get leather for free. There are also several sorcerer powers that apply penalties to enemies attacks, except they apply to everyone not just the warlock. So they are still better in these regards. Thank you for trying to refute my logic with facts, but you will have to try harder.
They also have a much higher armor class than warlocks, which is why warlocks get leather for free.
No they do not. They do not in any way, shape, or form, get more armor than a Warlock. They, in fact, get LESS, because a Warlock has leather armor.
No they do not. They do not in any way, shape, or form, get more armor than a Warlock. They, in fact, get LESS, because a Warlock has leather armor.
Please, please, please back this up with quotes from the books or facts. Thank you.
Please, please, please back this up with quotes from the books or facts. Thank you.
Have you never read the PH1?[INDENT]Page 275
Add the armor bonus of the armor you wear and the shield bonus of the shield you carry. If you are wearing light armor or no armor, also add your Dexterity modifier or Intelligence modifier, whichever is higher.[/INDENT]
Some sorcerers have the ability to to use STR instead of DEX/INT, but that doesn't make their AC any higher. Warlocks have INT as a secondary stat so unless they are trying to balance both CON and CHA, their INT should be about as high as a sorcerer's STR or DEX. Leather provides a +2 AC bonus while Cloth provides +0, thus warlock in leather with 16 INT will have an AC 2 points higher than a sorcerer in cloth with 16 STR/DEX.
What i mean is, just like Hindu, Christian, Greek, mythology (well, any of our world's religions), there are people who are considerred blessed, saints, cursed, etc.
THe key is, not all these people would be considered priests or a 'holy man' (more so in non christian faiths from what I have read).
That said, my players weren't happy with how boring the god rules are in 4E (or 3E for that matter) and really liked the rules for special priests in the old 2E book (forgot the name).
So what I did was, I took the gods from the 4E pantheon (core rules), added a few other gods that I consider core for our games, and a couple gods that my players are using for their characters and started to make a huge spreadsheet.
The way it works: based on your race/class, you can get different powers/ability score mods, etc depending who you worship. Some are a bit more powerful overall than others but they all are flavourful and with our houserules, my players don't care if 1 player is a bit more powerful than them...they prefer the uniqueness than having perfect balance.
An example of this chart:
Any warlock, who worships asmodeus, gets their eldritch blast upgraded to hellfire, which in our games, means it gets past any non-divine resistance and for magical fire protection, it halves it. At level 11, the damage is increased by 1 dice (so if it was 1d10, it becomes 2d10). At level 5, and 21, you get Fire resistance 5 and then 10.
Any female drow worshipping Lolth get +1 to int, wis, cha at level 1. And female priests, can get a ritual at lvl 21 to summon a Yochlol for 1 hour. I forgot what males get...
I also added real life religions to the chart, since a player wanted to use Jehovah as his god (he changed his mind when he found a more interesting one in some D&D book somewhere) and another wanted to go by chinese religions, etc. That was harder. Had to read up on several religions a bit more but I found that old 2E book did a decent job at most of it.
Regards,
Sanjay
Something we have implemented (slowly as it takes time to create) in our games; custom god rules:
What i mean is, just like Hindu, Christian, Greek, mythology (well, any of our world's religions), there are people who are considerred blessed, saints, cursed, etc.
THe key is, not all these people would be considered priests or a 'holy man' (more so in non christian faiths from what I have read).
That said, my players weren't happy with how boring the god rules are in 4E (or 3E for that matter) and really liked the rules for special priests in the old 2E book (forgot the name).
So what I did was, I took the gods from the 4E pantheon (core rules), added a few other gods that I consider core for our games, and a couple gods that my players are using for their characters and started to make a huge spreadsheet.
The way it works: based on your race/class, you can get different powers/ability score mods, etc depending who you worship. Some are a bit more powerful overall than others but they all are flavourful and with our houserules, my players don't care if 1 player is a bit more powerful than them...they prefer the uniqueness than having perfect balance.
An example of this chart:
Any warlock, who worships asmodeus, gets their eldritch blast upgraded to hellfire, which in our games, means it gets past any non-divine resistance and for magical fire protection, it halves it. At level 11, the damage is increased by 1 dice (so if it was 1d10, it becomes 2d10). At level 5, and 21, you get Fire resistance 5 and then 10.
Any female drow worshipping Lolth get +1 to int, wis, cha at level 1. And female priests, can get a ritual at lvl 21 to summon a Yochlol for 1 hour. I forgot what males get...
I also added real life religions to the chart, since a player wanted to use Jehovah as his god (he changed his mind when he found a more interesting one in some D&D book somewhere) and another wanted to go by chinese religions, etc. That was harder. Had to read up on several religions a bit more but I found that old 2E book did a decent job at most of it.
Regards,
Sanjay
While I don't give crunch benefits for religion, I do, like you, enjoy a more complex religious system. Instead of worshipping dieties the population tends to follow a monotheistic spiritual system, polytheistic pantheon, or an animistic path of spirituality. I have always preferred the have one or two monotheistic religions based on real world (but not quite) stuff simply because the medieval part of the medieval fantasy simply makes more sense to have some sort of medieval style religion.
That's just me though.
Thus, between the stuff we liked in 4e vs 3.5E and vice versa...mixed rules and created house rules to make up the difference.
The god rules was one that people wanted for along time and I decided to not implement in 3.XE, but then in 4E, when he learned of it, decided it was the best time to do the new rules; since we'd be changing over anyways most likely.
Sanjay
[INDENT]Page 275
Add the armor bonus of the armor you wear and the shield bonus of the shield you carry. If you are wearing light armor or no armor, also add your Dexterity modifier or Intelligence modifier, whichever is higher.[/INDENT]
Some sorcerers have the ability to to use STR instead of DEX/INT, but that doesn't make their AC any higher. Warlocks have INT as a secondary stat so unless they are trying to balance both CON and CHA, their INT should be about as high as a sorcerer's STR or DEX. Leather provides a +2 AC bonus while Cloth provides +0, thus warlock in leather with 16 INT will have an AC 2 points higher than a sorcerer in cloth with 16 STR/DEX.
Thank you for backing your position up with facts, I really appreciate it.
Since Int is only the secondary stat for non-damage dealers, it means that they will only max int out if they don't plan to deal damage. So it just reinforces my point about the sorcerer being a better striker than a warlock. Since in all cases the sorcerer will always get the bonus to AC, that means that the warlock will only have a higher AC half of the time, or more clearly for half of the choices.
A better system would be for priests as a class feature to get a +1 or +2 bonus to a single stat. Maybe even base it on a power. Make it a daily and it lasts for an entire encounter or something.
Since Int is only the secondary stat for non-damage dealers, it means that they will only max int out if they don't plan to deal damage. So it just reinforces my point about the sorcerer being a better striker than a warlock. Since in all cases the sorcerer will always get the bonus to AC, that means that the warlock will only have a higher AC half of the time, or more clearly for half of the choices.
Except that Sorcerers have the same problem: Strength and Constitution are still only secondary stats for them, just like Intelligence is for the Warlock. So Warlocks still win based on being able to wear heavier armor.
And Intelligence does more than just bonus damage for the Warlock; it increases a lot of movement effects for certain powers, and increases other various effects as well. And since only one build of Warlock uses both Charisma and Constitution, there's no real reason any other kind of Warlock wouldn't boost Intelligence, even if it is just for the AC.
And even for Starlocks, they still win out in the end. Because most Starlocks will still have one stat (Con/Cha) at 18 and the other at 16, that leaves a probable 14 for Intelligence, with the right race or stat point spending. Even if your Sorcerer puts a 16 into Strength or Constitution for an 18 total (with the right race) all that does is put one of four Warlock builds at the same AC total as the Sorcerer, while all the others are still at +2. Which means the Warlock still wins.
The problem with something like that is that it punishes people that choose no god to worship. Unless you have some kind of bonus package for atheists?
In a fantasy world where the gods exist, it makes sense that worshippers are more blessed than the blind. But that depends on how gods work in your world. Points of Light, Forgotten Realms and many other fantasy worlds operate with real gods; Eberron's gods seem to be real but less significant.
(That said, I cannot understand why 4th edition says divine powers do not come from gods.)
(That said, I cannot understand why 4th edition says divine powers do not come from gods.)
I think it makes sense. Character's in 4e can do amazing things just with force of will and it seems like kind of a burn that only the character's who go to church stop being awesome when what amounts to a super-powered NPC says so. It just makes more sense for me to say that their power comes from faith and the focus of meditation.
Also, it makes for the awesomely dramatic situations where a church wields amazing powers in the name of a god who you know doesn't condone their actions.
Except that Sorcerers have the same problem: Strength and Constitution are still only secondary stats for them, just like Intelligence is for the Warlock. So Warlocks still win based on being able to wear heavier armor.
And Intelligence does more than just bonus damage for the Warlock; it increases a lot of movement effects for certain powers, and increases other various effects as well. And since only one build of Warlock uses both Charisma and Constitution, there's no real reason any other kind of Warlock wouldn't boost Intelligence, even if it is just for the AC.
And even for Starlocks, they still win out in the end. Because most Starlocks will still have one stat (Con/Cha) at 18 and the other at 16, that leaves a probable 14 for Intelligence, with the right race or stat point spending. Even if your Sorcerer puts a 16 into Strength or Constitution for an 18 total (with the right race) all that does is put one of four Warlock builds at the same AC total as the Sorcerer, while all the others are still at +2. Which means the Warlock still wins.
In order to keep this thread from going waaaay off topic like it has been I'm going to refer you to the thread that is actually about sorcerers and warlocks. It is also where I pretty much agree with your assessment after looking up the specific rules and class features. If you would like to continue arguing about the warlock vs. the sorcerer go here:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1228674
Otherwise I will ignore all of posts about this subject (in order to get this thread back on topic).
Eberron's gods seem to be real but less significant.
It's unknown whether or not the gods exist. Maybe. Maybe Not. If they do they are certainly distant.
A thing I like about Eberron: non-theistic religions.
This is not a good idea. I have never seen any flaw or disadvantage system that actually promoted role playing as you suggest. All they do is promote power-gaming, because people will just take the flaws that affect them the least while in exchange obtaining an advantage that they greatly benefit from. And if the flaw or disadvantage is a purely role playing tool with no mechanical effect at all, then that's even worse.
Deadlands is a good example of how to avoid that. In that game, you have "Chips" that are a combination XP/Hero points. When the DM judges that a disadvantage has caused you a problem, you get a chip (the value determined by how much trouble you got into). This means ideally you want to have disadvantages that you will notice on a regular basis but nothing crippling. That is the ideal formular, IMO.
Another advantage to disadvantages (that's a weird phrase) is that it helps newbies get a handle on the roleplaying aspects of their character. Roleplaying comes from the players, sure, but I fid that having some definite mechanical flaws'/bennies helps 'roleplay shy' players get a handle on their character. ITs a lot easier to look at your character and say "Okay, he's obese an short tempered" and play that than come up with something from whole cloth.
It's unknown whether or not the gods exist. Maybe. Maybe Not. If they do they are certainly distant.
A thing I like about Eberron: non-theistic religions.
Interesting Eberron just went from -5 to -3 with that for me. when I find enough reasons to bump it up to +1 I might try it.
Deadlands is a good example of how to avoid that. In that game, you have "Chips" that are a combination XP/Hero points. When the DM judges that a disadvantage has caused you a problem, you get a chip (the value determined by how much trouble you got into). This means ideally you want to have disadvantages that you will notice on a regular basis but nothing crippling. That is the ideal formular, IMO.
Another advantage to disadvantages (that's a weird phrase) is that it helps newbies get a handle on the roleplaying aspects of their character. Roleplaying comes from the players, sure, but I fid that having some definite mechanical flaws'/bennies helps 'roleplay shy' players get a handle on their character. ITs a lot easier to look at your character and say "Okay, he's obese an short tempered" and play that than come up with something from whole cloth.
I've played the old school Deadlands (great game by the way) and the advantage/disadvantage system certainly had some ways to exploit it. You could take some pretty easy disadvantages and get some great advantages that more than made up for it. I don't remember exactly, but it was something along the lines of you talk funny but your rich. Rich cancels out a lot of stuff in that game.
I've played the old school Deadlands (great game by the way) and the advantage/disadvantage system certainly had some ways to exploit it. You could take some pretty easy disadvantages and get some great advantages that more than made up for it. I don't remember exactly, but it was something along the lines of you talk funny but your rich. Rich cancels out a lot of stuff in that game.
And we're back around to my suggestion of incorporating some ideas from Spirit of the Century (SRD here: http://zork.net/~nick/loyhargil/fate3/fate3.html). In that game, you don't have Advantages and Disadvantages, you have Aspects. You also have Fate points and Stunts, and your Stunts (along with a lot of other things you do in the game) are powered by Fate points. The main way to get Fate points back is for your Aspects to be tagged. The main reason your Aspects might be tagged is that the GM wants to get your character into trouble.
So, maybe your character has the aspects "Rich Beyond the Dreams of Avarice" and "Come Again, Son?" You can tag your own "Rich..." Aspect any time you think it should come into play, and thereby give yourself a reroll or a bonus, but you can only do this ten times before you're out of Fate points. To get more, you could point out to the GM that in ongoing sensitive negotiations your character's speech impediment is likely to cause him to be misunderstood, possibly spoiling the talks or even causing a fight. If the GM agrees (or comes to this conclusion on his own), he owes you a Fate point.
If a player picks only entirely "good" Aspects for his character, he'll have limited ways to get Fate points. It behooves players to come up with Aspects that are likely to provide hooks for the GM and other players.
Now, D&D couldn't exactly incorporate the above concept into its rules, as it's already part of an existing game. But I think it shows that there are alternate ways of integrating "interesting" traits into the game, and making sure they come up, that are less prone to "powergaming."
And we're back around to my suggestion of incorporating some ideas from Spirit of the Century (SRD here: http://zork.net/~nick/loyhargil/fate3/fate3.html). In that game, you don't have Advantages and Disadvantages, you have Aspects. You also have Fate points and Stunts, and your Stunts (along with a lot of other things you do in the game) are powered by Fate points. The main way to get Fate points back is for your Aspects to be tagged. The main reason your Aspects might be tagged is that the GM wants to get your character into trouble.
So, maybe your character has the aspects "Rich Beyond the Dreams of Avarice" and "Come Again, Son?" You can tag your own "Rich..." Aspect any time you think it should come into play, and thereby give yourself a reroll or a bonus, but you can only do this ten times before you're out of Fate points. To get more, you could point out to the GM that in ongoing sensitive negotiations your character's speech impediment is likely to cause him to be misunderstood, possibly spoiling the talks or even causing a fight. If the GM agrees (or comes to this conclusion on his own), he owes you a Fate point.
If a player picks only entirely "good" Aspects for his character, he'll have limited ways to get Fate points. It behooves players to come up with Aspects that are likely to provide hooks for the GM and other players.
Now, D&D couldn't exactly incorporate the above concept into its rules, as it's already part of an existing game. But I think it shows that there are alternate ways of integrating "interesting" traits into the game, and making sure they come up, that are less prone to "powergaming."
The problem is that the theme in D&D as of 4th edition is to not have players start with anything negative. That's why they got rid of the balancing -2 ability score in 3.5E. So I doubt they would go for this.
The problem is that the theme in D&D as of 4th edition is to not have players start with anything negative. That's why they got rid of the balancing -2 ability score in 3.5E. So I doubt they would go for this.
Well, the aspects needn't be strictly negative. Your character could be "Stubborn as a Mule," which has both positive and negative connotations.
But, as I said, they couldn't adopt these rules anyway. They're just an example of how creative character backgrounds can be designed and implemented with mechanical benefits.
Well, the aspects needn't be strictly negative. Your character could be "Stubborn as a Mule," which has both positive and negative connotations.
Wait, I thought dwarves got this for free.
But, as I said, they couldn't adopt these rules anyway. They're just an example of how creative character backgrounds can be designed and implemented with mechanical benefits.
They already have something like this. I don't know what books it is from, but look at the background section when you create a character in the CB. There are many backgrounds that work this way.
Wait, I thought dwarves got this for free.
Ha-ha, but you actually make a good point: classes and races already have built in "flaws." Dwarves are sturdy (advantage), but plodding (flaw). They have good Wisdom (advantage), but this will make them tend away from classes that require Charisma, so as not to double up on a defense (flaw). Dragonborn can get a better attack bonus (advantage) but must put themselves at risk to get it (flaw). Strikers can be threatening(advantage), but must also be cautious. (flaw).
Right, it's just game balance, I know, same with feats and powers that have prerequisites. Powergamers can minimize the flaws to maximize the advantages, and more power to them, but there's still a lot of roleplaying in the "flaws" provided by the game.
They already have something like this. I don't know what books it is from, but look at the background section when you create a character in the CB. There are many backgrounds that work this way.
Speaking of flaws, though. I think many of the backgrounds can help the DM introduce complications for the players, but only the benefits have a mechanical effect. What if characters with the Wandering Duellist received a +1 to attack a creature that had marked him? Still seems like a benefit, but works out to a -3 against other targets.
Anyway, I'm no game designer, so there's probably a downside to my suggestion. I maintain that a system of "flaws" could be implemented in the game, beyond a "take a flaw get a feat" system, or anything like that. I would not have thought that powers could have been implemented meaningfully, but they were.
Also, didn't someone in this thread suggest having a pool of powers for each power source? When I first heard of the powers, I assumed that's what the design was. I had trouble imagining that each class had its own list. I could see the game going that way, except that the number of choices you'd then have would drive the optimizers into a frenzy and raise all sorts of "traps," power combinations that were "allowed" but "ineffective."
Ha-ha, but you actually make a good point: classes and races already have built in "flaws." Dwarves are sturdy (advantage), but plodding (flaw). They have good Wisdom (advantage), but this will make them tend away from classes that require Charisma, so as not to double up on a defense (flaw). Dragonborn can get a better attack bonus (advantage) but must put themselves at risk to get it (flaw). Strikers can be threatening(advantage), but must also be cautious. (flaw).
Right, it's just game balance, I know, same with feats and powers that have prerequisites. Powergamers can minimize the flaws to maximize the advantages, and more power to them, but there's still a lot of roleplaying in the "flaws" provided by the game.
Speaking of flaws, though. I think many of the backgrounds can help the DM introduce complications for the players, but only the benefits have a mechanical effect. What if characters with the Wandering Duellist received a +1 to attack a creature that had marked him? Still seems like a benefit, but works out to a -3 against other targets.
I think the idea of fate points and aspects is OK. It can probably still be gamed to a limited extent, but probably less overall than a straight advantage/disadvantage type system. I think the 4e game mechanics would be robust enough to incorporate something like that. It would probably have to be an elaboration of APs, but it seems doable.
On the other hand the 4e philosophy of letting "flaws" simply be things you aren't as good at because you are good at something else is OK too. And to a certain extent 4e also seems to want disadvantages to be pretty much in the hands of the DM in terms of making them story considerations vs hard and fast mechanical systems. In a sense it really isn't that much different from something like fate points. The DM is in either case pretty much tasked with managing the players power levels. Players that have no interest in RP aren't likely to be sucked into it by mechanics anyhow, so the DM is always going to be in the position of bringing the character's background and traits to life at some level.
Also, didn't someone in this thread suggest having a pool of powers for each power source? When I first heard of the powers, I assumed that's what the design was. I had trouble imagining that each class had its own list. I could see the game going that way, except that the number of choices you'd then have would drive the optimizers into a frenzy and raise all sorts of "traps," power combinations that were "allowed" but "ineffective."
Well, I think now that the best way to do it might actually be to have pools of powers based on role instead of class or power source. Fluff is mutable and most any power can be portrayed in such a way as to be arcane, divine, etc. A fighter is going to be structured in such a way that only certain powers are really all that useful to him anyhow, so it would be more in the lines of giving character creation flexibility than anything else. The fighter will likely take STR based melee attack powers from the defender pool for example. The wizard is probably going to take INT based ranged/burst/blast powers from controller. The nice thing is you actually need a LOT less base classes this way. No more need for wizard AND invoker, or even fighter AND paladin AND rogue AND ranger. Class features could be relegated entirely to feats, classes essentially become power sources, and what role you take is pretty much up to you. THAT would make an interesting system and would have some nice advantages over 4e. In fact it would kind of almost smack of the 3.x kind of smorgasbord of choices, just with more balance.
Heck I could see 5e having classes that are really just nothing but recommended build kits. You want to be a wizard? Take Spell Book, Staff Mastery, Ritual Caster, be a controller, and use ranged/burst/blast powers fluffed to the arcane power source. Very flexible, cuts WAY down on the number of individual powers that need to be written, and I don't really see a downside. The worst you can say is it puts a bit more burden on the player to create a concept for their character, but as long as there are plenty of example builds to choose from that can be largely alleviated and left to advanced players.
I think likewise weapons could be more generalized. Instead of insisting that every specific weapon gives you very specific advantages and is pretty much the ideal choice for every character of a certain type you could instead categorize them in a way that isn't related to their form so much. In other words weapons could be designated as hacking, slashing, bludgeoning, piercing etc and let the player describe it as whatever form they want. There can still be 1-handed, 2-handed, etc versions of weapons, but they can give basically standardized advantages and disadvantages that again are decoupled from the description of the weapon. If I want my dwarf barbarian to use a sword and not an axe then I can do it and just call it a "broadsword" and make it a hacking 2 handed weapon. I can now use it with the feats and powers appropriate to a hacking weapon.
I think the idea of fate points and aspects is OK. It can probably still be gamed to a limited extent, but probably less overall than a straight advantage/disadvantage type system. I think the 4e game mechanics would be robust enough to incorporate something like that. It would probably have to be an elaboration of APs, but it seems doable.
On the other hand the 4e philosophy of letting "flaws" simply be things you aren't as good at because you are good at something else is OK too. And to a certain extent 4e also seems to want disadvantages to be pretty much in the hands of the DM in terms of making them story considerations vs hard and fast mechanical systems. In a sense it really isn't that much different from something like fate points. The DM is in either case pretty much tasked with managing the players power levels. Players that have no interest in RP aren't likely to be sucked into it by mechanics anyhow, so the DM is always going to be in the position of bringing the character's background and traits to life at some level.
Well, I think now that the best way to do it might actually be to have pools of powers based on role instead of class or power source. Fluff is mutable and most any power can be portrayed in such a way as to be arcane, divine, etc. A fighter is going to be structured in such a way that only certain powers are really all that useful to him anyhow, so it would be more in the lines of giving character creation flexibility than anything else. The fighter will likely take STR based melee attack powers from the defender pool for example. The wizard is probably going to take INT based ranged/burst/blast powers from controller. The nice thing is you actually need a LOT less base classes this way. No more need for wizard AND invoker, or even fighter AND paladin AND rogue AND ranger. Class features could be relegated entirely to feats, classes essentially become power sources, and what role you take is pretty much up to you. THAT would make an interesting system and would have some nice advantages over 4e. In fact it would kind of almost smack of the 3.x kind of smorgasbord of choices, just with more balance.
Heck I could see 5e having classes that are really just nothing but recommended build kits. You want to be a wizard? Take Spell Book, Staff Mastery, Ritual Caster, be a controller, and use ranged/burst/blast powers fluffed to the arcane power source. Very flexible, cuts WAY down on the number of individual powers that need to be written, and I don't really see a downside. The worst you can say is it puts a bit more burden on the player to create a concept for their character, but as long as there are plenty of example builds to choose from that can be largely alleviated and left to advanced players.
I think likewise weapons could be more generalized. Instead of insisting that every specific weapon gives you very specific advantages and is pretty much the ideal choice for every character of a certain type you could instead categorize them in a way that isn't related to their form so much. In other words weapons could be designated as hacking, slashing, bludgeoning, piercing etc and let the player describe it as whatever form they want. There can still be 1-handed, 2-handed, etc versions of weapons, but they can give basically standardized advantages and disadvantages that again are decoupled from the description of the weapon. If I want my dwarf barbarian to use a sword and not an axe then I can do it and just call it a "broadsword" and make it a hacking 2 handed weapon. I can now use it with the feats and powers appropriate to a hacking weapon.
To build on what you suggest why even categorize powers into categories, why not just give them keywords. Thus an arcane source striker power might have the "keywords arcane, striker, fire". Then base each class on a power source, and let them choose a role, then they can choose any power that has either the power source and role keywords. So a wizard would get the arcane power source and then choose to be a striker, then they can grab the "arcane, striker, fire" power for that level. Instead of putting the class features into feats, put them into a separate category and allow the player to choose 1 every 5 levels or so for their chosen power source and/or role. Thus the wizard could choose the dark pact feature which would give it the dark pact based features, then in five levels they could choose the orb of imposition feature which would give it those bonuses, and on up. Of course there would have to be extended testing done to make sure all the combination's were balanced, but that is something that should be done anyway. Thus you have four or five main classes that you can expand upon in later books by adding features, feats, and powers.
One thing I would do though is have equally useful skills that come from an equal number of abilities. Maybe 2 from each which would be 12 skills that could be used on any number of skill challenges and other things. Oh and change the skill challenge up a whole lot.
To build on what you suggest why even categorize powers into categories, why not just give them keywords. Thus an arcane source striker power might have the "keywords arcane, striker, fire". Then base each class on a power source, and let them choose a role, then they can choose any power that has either the power source and role keywords. So a wizard would get the arcane power source and then choose to be a striker, then they can grab the "arcane, striker, fire" power for that level. Instead of putting the class features into feats, put them into a separate category and allow the player to choose 1 every 5 levels or so for their chosen power source and/or role. Thus the wizard could choose the dark pact feature which would give it the dark pact based features, then in five levels they could choose the orb of imposition feature which would give it those bonuses, and on up. Of course there would have to be extended testing done to make sure all the combination's were balanced, but that is something that should be done anyway. Thus you have four or five main classes that you can expand upon in later books by adding features, feats, and powers.
I think I would prefer to relegate power source to pure fluff. In other words you have a leader power that you can use to hit an opponent and give an ally a buff to his to-hit. For a martial leader this is fluffed as inspiration, for a divine leader it is fluffed as the power of faith. The advantage is it is a single power. Various things could contribute mechanically to making it more distinct based on the power source your character uses or even on other details like spheres of influence of your god or types of weapon techniques your character favors. So each power would be in one of the per-role lists. Characters might actually have a major role and a minor role, thus allowing them to have some access to more than one list (maybe this would be a type of "multi-classing" mechanic).
While you could have a whole separate category of class features I think it would be more elegant to subsume that under the existing feat system. Feat based features might not be exactly like the existing 4e class features, but they could be fairly well balanced (hybrids already seem to be essentially doing this anyway). Obviously some features like rogue's sneak attack feature are pretty powerful, but I think they could be reworked to form a reasonable feat chain. The number of starting feats would probably want to be upped some or they could be gained at a bit faster rate, etc. Obviously a lot of little details would have to be tweaked, but it seems like a pretty viable system overall.
Frankly I was a bit surprised 4e didn't do something like this. I think they kind of missed the boat on that one. It cuts WAY down on the required number of powers, makes "multi-classing" simply an organic outgrowth of the way the system works, etc.
One interesting variation on this would be to essentially do away with martial as a power source. Mundane powers would then simply represent things anyone can do with enough practice. The more fantastic powers that now fall under martial classes would then be assigned to something like "ki" (use whatever word you want, psionic, etc). A character could start his career with only mundane abilities and use this source to become progressively more fantastic at higher levels.
The whole system would also be very amenable to concepts like the "ordinary joe" sort of character which starts as a basically mundane person and becomes a hero, something 4e can't really do particularly well.
The whole system would also be very amenable to concepts like the "ordinary joe" sort of character which starts as a basically mundane person and becomes a hero, something 4e can't really do particularly well.
And thank goodness.
The whole system would also be very amenable to concepts like the "ordinary joe" sort of character which starts as a basically mundane person and becomes a hero, something 4e can't really do particularly well.
And thank goodness.
Could you explain why you think that's a bad thing? I'd like to be able to do campaigns that focus on relatively ordinary people who make heroic choices and though that action slowly evolve into the type of heroes 4e currently starts us off as. Unfortunately I haven't been able to create or find any rules capable of making this possible. Your opinion seems to be that I shouldn't be able to do this at all, why is that?
Could you explain why you think that's a bad thing? I'd like to be able to do campaigns that focus on relatively ordinary people who make heroic choices and though that action slowly evolve into the type of heroes 4e currently starts us off as. Unfortunately I haven't been able to create or find any rules capable of making this possible. Your opinion seems to be that I shouldn't be able to do this at all, why is that?
The simple answer for me is:
Its not what I want from DnD.
When I play a game like SoC or even Savage Worlds I don't mind 'relatively common man thrust into bad situations' tropes, but DnD is Heroic Fantasy. To me this means Larger than Life. Ergo: I don't want to be the stable hand who discovers he has magical powers or something.
Could you explain why you think that's a bad thing? I'd like to be able to do campaigns that focus on relatively ordinary people who make heroic choices and though that action slowly evolve into the type of heroes 4e currently starts us off as. Unfortunately I haven't been able to create or find any rules capable of making this possible. Your opinion seems to be that I shouldn't be able to do this at all, why is that?
You should be able to do whatever you want (and I think you can, as I'll try to explain) but I don't think there should be rules for it. The game has narrowed its focus to heroic (and beyond) characters, and is the better for it. The 3.5 DMG had rules for "ordinary people" but couched them in the same terms as the rest of the game, including a combat system that assumes characters can take multiple hits and have access to healing abilities. I did not think it was needed or well-implemented, and I played in (and finally walked out of) a 3.5 game in which we all started as Warriors which confirmed my dislike for these rules.
However, I think you should be able to play D&D games that focus on relatively ordinary people, and I think you can. I just don't think that the rules need to be cluttered by classes, feats, powers, skills, and combat that describe the capabilities of such characters. I think games of that nature can and should be run more as collaborative storytelling, so the focus can be on those choices, rather than their "normal" abilities. Then at some point (decided not by "experience" but by the story) these characters can graduate into the heroes that the rules were written to handle. Actually, a lot of people already do this, but its in the form of character backgrounds, which are generally not collaborative. I believe I suggested earlier that character backgrounds be created collaboratively, and that there be guidelines in the rules to aid in this.
You should be able to do whatever you want (and I think you can, as I'll try to explain) but I don't think there should be rules for it. The game has narrowed its focus to heroic (and beyond) characters, and is the better for it. The 3.5 DMG had rules for "ordinary people" but couched them in the same terms as the rest of the game, including a combat system that assumes characters can take multiple hits and have access to healing abilities. I did not think it was needed or well-implemented, and I played in (and finally walked out of) a 3.5 game in which we all started as Warriors which confirmed my dislike for these rules.
However, I think you should be able to play D&D games that focus on relatively ordinary people, and I think you can. I just don't think that the rules need to be cluttered by classes, feats, powers, skills, and combat that describe the capabilities of such characters. I think games of that nature can and should be run more as collaborative storytelling, so the focus can be on those choices, rather than their "normal" abilities. Then at some point (decided not by "experience" but by the story) these characters can graduate into the heroes that the rules were written to handle. Actually, a lot of people already do this, but its in the form of character backgrounds, which are generally not collaborative. I believe I suggested earlier that character backgrounds be created collaboratively, and that there be guidelines in the rules to aid in this.
Actually 4E has characters that start as ordinary people, they are called minions and usually only have a basic melee and/or basic ranged attack, and no trained skills.
Could you explain why you think that's a bad thing? I'd like to be able to do campaigns that focus on relatively ordinary people who make heroic choices and though that action slowly evolve into the type of heroes 4e currently starts us off as. Unfortunately I haven't been able to create or find any rules capable of making this possible. Your opinion seems to be that I shouldn't be able to do this at all, why is that?
Start off at zero level and role play in order to gain a class.;)
How could 4e be improved? Here's a couple of suggestions.
1. Add a "non-combat skill" section which has it's own number of skills to train that you can't use for combat skills. Make these skills that promote and encourage roleplaying -- knowledge skills, profession skills, dwarven mating rituals, cooking, music performance (unrelated to bardic effects), singing, dwarf tossing, etc.
2. Add a set of "reverse-feats" or disadvantages which promote roleplaying by introducing "defects" in the character -- fear of spiders, fear of 3.5e vs. 4e threads, fear of the dark, delusion that the world is hollow and he's touched the sky, etc. Basically minor and major disadvantages that get you ... something. Maybe the major ones get you the ability to get another bonus feat. Maybe the minor ones get you a point to spend on attributes. Allow only 1 or 2 disadvantages -- don't want to go too far with this.
3. Add an integrated rule for thrown oil, holy water, and other grenade like missiles -- splash weapons and non magical area affect missiles.
4. Maybe an updated d20 modern setting?
Defects? This should be an optional rule for home play. Not allowed in any organised play such as RPGA or any Living Campaign. I, and I'm sure others as well, don't really want to play characters who are "blind in one eye" and have to take a penalty to attack rolls, or some such foolishness, to get a +1 Intimidate bonus because of the cool eyepatch the character has to wear. There's was enough penalties handed out in past editions through curses and the like. I, and I'm sure others as well, are not too eager to roll up problems for their characters. I know I'm not. This also reminds me of the KotD story where all the players sat around giving their characters bucket loads of disadvantages just to get a ton of attribute increases and access to more powers. D&D would get silly then. I may have to quit D&D entirely by then.
Actually 4E has characters that start as ordinary people, they are called minions and usually only have a basic melee and/or basic ranged attack, and no trained skills.
I'm not sure if you're being serious or not. It might be interesting, actually, to assume your "pre-adventure" characters would simply die the first time they were hit. Combat would be something to be avoided. Even Easy skill challenges would be very difficult. Might not be bad.
It would be really awesome to be able to help the designers shape the new edition by providing feedback on what works and what doesn't. If WotC had done this with 4e, we could have helped to solve some of the issues that have plagued a few of the original PHB classes (Paladin, Warlock, Wizard), and some of the other minor problems (the unclear relationship between weapons and implements).
I think WotC should take a page out of Paizo's book in this case (but nothing else from Pathfinder, please :p). The only problem, I imagine, is that we might have annoying close-minded people complaining that the new edition sucks just because it is a change. Perhaps an Insider-only playtest would be good?
I'm not sure if you're being serious or not. It might be interesting, actually, to assume your "pre-adventure" characters would simply die the first time they were hit. Combat would be something to be avoided. Even Easy skill challenges would be very difficult. Might not be bad.
I was half joking as I'm one of those who like 'heroic' heroes. Not 'farmer finds a magic sword and becomes a legend' heroes. It would probably work if you did it right.
I thought of something I would really LOVE to see when 5e eventually rolls around: an open playtest.
It would be really awesome to be able to help the designers shape the new edition by providing feedback on what works and what doesn't. If WotC had done this with 4e, we could have helped to solve some of the issues that have plagued a few of the original PHB classes (Paladin, Warlock, Wizard), and some of the other minor problems (the unclear relationship between weapons and implements).
I think WotC should take a page out of Paizo's book in this case (but nothing else from Pathfinder, please :p). The only problem, I imagine, is that we might have annoying close-minded people complaining that the new edition sucks just because it is a change. Perhaps an Insider-only playtest would be good?
I agree. It would almost make DDI worth paying for. Then I could help emphasize how important the online aspect would be, and help expose problems and imbalances. "Fireball does what to how many targets?"
I agree. It would almost make DDI worth paying for. Then I could help emphasize how important the online aspect would be, and help expose problems and imbalances. "Fireball does what to how many targets?"
OK, so exactly who requires WotC to do this? If we all sit down someplace and design it in the open and turn around and say "hey, who wants to make money publishing this?" then what? Hmmm. Granted it might not turn out be officially "D&D" in the end. Do I really care? If its well supported and is the best rules I can get, that's fine. If the current 4e team was on board, that would be even more fine, though it is unlikely they'd go for it for a few more years. I guess worst case it ends up like various knock offs that have had decent rules and a modest following.
OK, so exactly who requires WotC to do this? If we all sit down someplace and design it in the open and turn around and say "hey, who wants to make money publishing this?" then what? Hmmm. Granted it might not turn out be officially "D&D" in the end. Do I really care? If its well supported and is the best rules I can get, that's fine. If the current 4e team was on board, that would be even more fine, though it is unlikely they'd go for it for a few more years. I guess worst case it ends up like various knock offs that have had decent rules and a modest following.
I would for one. While I like to tinker with rules and mechanics of systems. I don't have the time. To make it worth taking up the small amounts of free time that I currently have it would have to be marketed by a major company.
I'd like to see WotC integrate all their various properties into 5th edition. Pokemon, Magic the Gathering, My Little Pony, etc.
"... Ok, I mount My Little Pony and summon Pikachu' then charge into the zombie gnashers..."
Naw, I don't think so...
"... Ok, I mount My Little Pony and summon Pikachu' then charge into the zombie gnashers..."
Naw, I don't think so...
Don't forget MapleStory!
OK, so exactly who requires WotC to do this? If we all sit down someplace and design it in the open and turn around and say "hey, who wants to make money publishing this?" then what? Hmmm. Granted it might not turn out be officially "D&D" in the end. Do I really care? If its well supported and is the best rules I can get, that's fine. If the current 4e team was on board, that would be even more fine, though it is unlikely they'd go for it for a few more years. I guess worst case it ends up like various knock offs that have had decent rules and a modest following.
Nobody requires WotC to do this. It would just be a smart marketing move, and ultimately lead to improvements with the final product.
Paizo did this with Pathfinder by publishing a free Beta playtest of the rules, and taking feedback on what needed improving. Granted, the only people that really wanted to buy Pathfinder were 3e grognards, as most of the open-minded people had moved on to 4e. As such, Paizo ended up turning Pathfinder into 3.6e rather than making significant improvements to the system.
Your comment about people turning around and stealing WotC ideas doesn't even make sense, as that is obviously a copyright violation. If WotC published a free beta playtest, they would obviously protect their IP.
WotC has published multiple playtests for 4e products already (monk, barbarian, druid etc.) and none of them resulted in people stealing the work and publishing it themselves. That's just plain silly.
Nobody requires WotC to do this. It would just be a smart marketing move, and ultimately lead to improvements with the final product.
Not necessarily. It just means the loudest people would have more of a sway. They aren't always right; they're more frequently wrong, in my experience.
Nobody requires WotC to do this. It would just be a smart marketing move, and ultimately lead to improvements with the final product.
Paizo did this with Pathfinder by publishing a free Beta playtest of the rules, and taking feedback on what needed improving. Granted, the only people that really wanted to buy Pathfinder were 3e grognards, as most of the open-minded people had moved on to 4e. As such, Paizo ended up turning Pathfinder into 3.6e rather than making significant improvements to the system.
Your comment about people turning around and stealing WotC ideas doesn't even make sense, as that is obviously a copyright violation. If WotC published a free beta playtest, they would obviously protect their IP.
WotC has published multiple playtests for 4e products already (monk, barbarian, druid etc.) and none of them resulted in people stealing the work and publishing it themselves. That's just plain silly.
Yeah, it also didn't result in any changes to the stuff they 'playtested'. It was more of a preview than a playtest. They just labeled it a playtest to get more people to think they were a part of something. Another corporate tactic to trick people into thinking they are making a difference.
Not necessarily. It just means the loudest people would have more of a sway. They aren't always right; they're more frequently wrong, in my experience.
Yeah, they'd have to have a survey every week to see which rules people wanted to keep and which they didn't
Yeah, it also didn't result in any changes to the stuff they 'playtested'. It was more of a preview than a playtest. They just labeled it a playtest to get more people to think they were a part of something. Another corporate tactic to trick people into thinking they are making a difference.
On the contrary the Hybrid playtest really was a playtest, as evinced by the fact that it was changed only a month later in response to feedback.
On the contrary the Hybrid playtest really was a playtest, as evinced by the fact that it was changed only a month later in response to feedback.
The changes you were mentioning were from the RPGA testing, not from random posters on the forum or people that read it in Dragon magazine and decided to send an email. They admit as much when they announced the changes.
On the contrary the Hybrid playtest really was a playtest, as evinced by the fact that it was changed only a month later in response to feedback.
The Barbarian had slight changes, and the Artificer, the first playtest, had SO MANY CHANGES OMG.
And those are the only playtests that have thus far concluded, so we can't say they don't change. On the contrary, all our evidence points toward them being effective!
HUZZAH!
But I don't think it's a great idea to Playtest an entire rules-system like that. Far too much influence of loud-yelling people (If they had done that with 4e, it might have ended up as 3.8 or something).
I'd like to see WotC integrate all their various properties into 5th edition. Pokemon, Magic the Gathering, My Little Pony, etc.
and all the campaign worlds:
DarkSun
Mystara
Hollow World
Al-Qadim
Maztica
Red Steel
SpellJammer
Ravenloft
Blackmore
Birthright
Council of Worms
Dragonlance
Jakandor
Kara-Tur
Lankhmar
Mahasarpa
Pelinore
Planescape
Rokugan
And all of the Modern and SCi-Fi worlds.
Heeeee...!
Nobody requires WotC to do this. It would just be a smart marketing move, and ultimately lead to improvements with the final product.
My point ACTUALLY was, though I worded it poorly, that an open source game is perfectly feasible. What I meant by requires is why would WE need WotC for that? Its them that needs us, not the other way around.
As for "the loudest people will..." believe me, the open source software world has been dealing with that issue for 20 years. Its a perfectly solvable problem, its just that the gaming industry and gamers generally don't know about those solutions. Some projects actually have done stuff online and done pretty well. There are tons of shared worlds, adventures, etc. What has to exist is some degree of structure to a project for it to succeed. Community building has to be handled well, etc. Its perfectly doable.
Actually if they playtested it not only online, but at conventions, and sending out tests to the various stores that sell their products. I can see it working. If it were completely online through the WotC website. I can see it not working.
Yeah, well, using a forum like this one to design something is a terrible way to go about it. Forums have perfectly good uses and if it was properly organized it could be a tool which can contribute to the process, just like the Linux Kernel Mailing List contributes to Linux development. It isn't the way decisions about kernel architecture get made though.
Generally the way projects of this type evolve is that they start with one or a very small group of people that have a fairly coherent vision of what they want to accomplish, though it may change considerably in the process. Only the core group commits work directly into the product. Other people test, contribute ideas, make modifications of their own, and then advocate with the core group of commiters to get their stuff into the product. Various tools are used to track the impact of changes on other parts of the system, build up terminology, document the reasons for design decisions, and track defects. Not all of that translates perfectly from software to PnP games, but a lot of it does.
I would kind of envisage that process ending up with something that was licensed in such a way that anyone with the interest in doing so could take it, make whatever tweaks they need to, and publish hardcopy if that's what they want to do.
Actually if they playtested it not only online, but at conventions, and sending out tests to the various stores that sell their products. I can see it working. If it were completely online through the WotC website. I can see it not working.
Yeah, well, using a forum like this one to design something is a terrible way to go about it. Forums have perfectly good uses and if it was properly organized it could be a tool which can contribute to the process, just like the Linux Kernel Mailing List contributes to Linux development. It isn't the way decisions about kernel architecture get made though. Generally the way projects of this type evolve is that they start with one or a very small group of people that have a fairly coherent vision of what they want to accomplish, though it may change considerably in the process. Only the core group commits work directly into the product. Other people test, contribute ideas, make modifications of their own, and then advocate with the core group of commiters to get their stuff into the product. Various tools are used to track the impact of changes on other parts of the system, build up terminology, document the reasons for design decisions, and track defects. Not all of that translates perfectly from software to PnP games, but a lot of it does. I would kind of envisage that process ending up with something that was licensed in such a way that anyone with the interest in doing so could take it, make whatever tweaks they need to, and publish hardcopy if that's what they want to do.
I agree, if they did it the wrong way with the forums it would tank 5E, but if they did it right and took in feedback from many sources and balanced them out by the number of people that agree with each piece of feedback, then they might get a game everyone wants to play.