Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Bobfred21 Aug 22, 2010 20:22:31	This post is largely lead up to what lead me to want to undertake this kind of project. If you are easilly bored or deterred, you may wish to skip to the meat and potatoes of what I intend to use this thread for, which can be found in the second post. Now, before I start I should note that I love 4E. 4E really took the game in a new direction which really spoke to me. Real life had me leave the game for a while and when I came back to it I found that the power creep and excess products had driven the game more towards some of the issues of 3.5 which I didn't like (namely power creep and bloat). In light of this, I started thinking: Well, 4th edition at it's heart is nearly perfect mechanically. Some of the implementation of the game is a little wonky - as is to be expected, things that look good on the drawing board don't always come out the  same way in play, especially when you're filling a product based on filling it to selling point, rather than filling it to the point that it's done. Which in turn got me thinking about the economic side of the game. WoTC will, of course, pump out mechanics and classes until they are out of ideas - and rightly so, they are afterall in it for the money. As a business they must survive somehow and, while my idea of a perfect game system is possible- it's probably bad for business, because once my perfect game system is achieved I am no longer a paying customer. Therefore some bad design must be included in order to facilitate the eventuality of an edition shift (aka 5.0). This edition shift inevitably starts the cycle again. Even outside of intentionally forced and irrelevant content (in order to fill space rather then to flesh out an actual idea), filling out a new edition inevitably comes with a learning curve: the rules of game design that applied to the last edition don't necessarily apply to this edition, thus you have little slips in the rules, infinite combos and other game balance destroyers - not intentional, but very much unavoidable. My aim with this thread is to customize 4E to my liking, not because I want to stop paying for the game (in fact, I enjoy having the books, reading the classes and mechanics even if I don't want to see them used in my game). In fact, a large part of the problem for me is I like many new options which come in each book, but as a DM I find it hard to say you can use feat A, Class Feature B, but not Class Features C, D or Paragon Path E. I suppose I'm getting long winded, so I'll include only one more VERY IMPORTANT tid bit before I go about outlining my goals for the thread. The work I put into this is not an attempt to replace 4E or anything like that, but rather improve upon the ground work. More specifically a 4.5 for my personal use which will allow (but not implicitly guarantee) the inclusion of future WoTC products. I do this not because I feel the game is radically insufficient, but rather because I ENJOY the game and would like to see a few minor issues fixed. Furthermore, before anyone goes on telling me how much a waste of time this is and how I should stop while I'm ahead: I do this as a matter of fun. I enjoy game design and dabbling a bit in the structure of 4E is a personal excercize in creativity.
#2 Bobfred21 Aug 22, 2010 20:23:03	Without further ado, here are my goals with this endeavour: Limit Bloat: By this I mean only ideas which really have a place will fit into this project. Taking classes as an example, ideally the idea behind a class should be an easily identifiable archetype which someone who has never played D&D can easily pick up on and identify with. For example, while both the Cleric and Runepriest are unique mechanically, I doubt very much a newcomer to the game would be able to find much of a difference in the flavour between them. There may be room for the mechanics, but the addition of an entire class feels as though it has no niche to me. To reduce or eliminate polarizing options: Having an option available which isn't really an option at all, or where one particular choice is so much better than any other choice a person might make that it invalidates all other choices is not fun, even if the choice doesn't unbalance a game. A prime example of this polarization might be the Twin Strike, At-Will Power available to rangers. While it's okay to have an option that is so good all rangers of a specific type take it (for example, a scimitar wielding ranger is almost certain to pick up scimitar dance), it is NOT okay to have an option which is so good broader groups like entire classes rely upon it. To establish baseline damage and utility for powers across all levels of all classes: This isn't to say that all classes will use a similar power table or that all powers will be generic. Rather what it means is that a level 5 daily power will top out around X average given a decently optimized set up whether it's a Paladin Power or a Barbarian Power. The reason for this is twofold. I. To prevent cherry picking. If striker A is given a power at level 5 that deals around 50 average damage, and Striker B is given a power at the same level which deals around 100 average damage, there's little to no reason for Striker A NOT to multiclass into Striker B and cherry pick said power. II. More importantly to prevent power creep: Striker A and B in book 1 (or in the case of this project are designed at the very beginning of the project) are relatively balanced with each other. Striker C, in book 2 (or in the case of this project, designed several months later) are staged with one upping the first strikers and, in order to add cool factor simply have powers which are better than powers previously available in terms of damage potential. This will not limit additional effects on powers, just the raw damage meaning there is room for additional mechanics later. In line with this streamlining of powers across levels is my next goal: To make class features more prominent In light of the above goal, it might seem unfair that a Cleric's damage limits be the same as a Rogues - the Rogue, of course, has every right to do more damage than the cleric. This damage will come from enhanced striker class features. To be more specific, I believe a large part of the fun of the game is setting up conditions to trigger class features. ALL Strikers will need to meet conditions in order to trigger (likely buffed) striker damage conditions. The Rogue is a good spring board for what I would like to see in most strikers as far as having to trigger class features. To make 4E fit together better as a whole: A cohesive picture. Going with the picture analogy, it's like PHB1 was a beautiful painting, and then along comes PHB2, and the original painter has decided to expand his original painting, so he starts to paint beside it, only to find he can't quite nail the original style: surely the new addition is beautiful, but something just doesn't fit about the two as the single painting they were designed to be. Sure enough, out comes PHB3, PHB4 and various other sourcebooks as this painter just continues to paint additions onto the painting - years later he finally finishes: he's added things he never thought possible, the picture has taken on a life of its own, really but it's strayed from the original train of thought which started it. Its quality and style over the years has changed with hit mood and with the times and certain aspects of this otherwise beautiful painting simply don't fit with each other. Some things over lap, some things are repeated too many times, etc... Etc... Imagine this as an artist returning to this painting later and deciding to paint it all at once, or setting a more defined set of goals which will help him to draw something which captures the spirit of the original painting, but to smooth out the parts which were added later to make it seem as one cohesive whole rather than an amalgam of paintings drawn over the years and stuck together. One clarification I would like to make: I will not be redesigning 4E from the ground up, I would like most powers to stay intact, my goal will be to establish a baseline power per level across classes in already existing powers and then modify stragglers in both the high end and low end. Ideally there should be no obsolete powers and no brainer powers.
#3 Bobfred21 Aug 22, 2010 20:24:06	This summer my job consisted of manual labour, the kind you don't need your brain for - given this, I found myself frequently bored and often entertained myself by thinking about the changes I might make to D&D given the chance. This post will outline my broader goals for combat roles, lightly touch on specific classes and outline some unpolished ideas I came up with while on the job. This is NOT the bulk of the work here, rather a taste to give you an idea of what it might look like. Niches and Archetypes: As I mentioned earlier, I would like to limit bloat, in order to do this I need to define what fits and what doesn't. The easiest way to do this is to create a pre-established list.  By and large the largest offenders on this front are classes, which should be broad archetypes which are easily identifiable by new comers - Paragon Paths have room to be specific and less archetypical and expand upon said classes. In light of this I would like to create a list of classes which are both broad enough and understandable enough to be included as a base class. This will prevent classes from slipping in, in order to fulfil specific mechanics or classes designed around very narrow flavour in order to fill space in a book, or around certain tenets. Archetype List: Ranger, Rogue, Monk, Barbarian, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard, Fighter, Paladin, Cleric/Priest, Druid, Warden, Swordmage, Bard, Psion, Shaman, Warlord, Death/Dark Knight Uncertainties: Avenger, Artificer, Invoker, Seeker, *Actual Psionic Striker, **Potentially others *While the monk can certainly be made to fit with the Psionic Power source, they lack the feel of a true psionic striker. Ideally new players should be able to look at a class and identify its power source. I actually believe the Psionic Power source could use some more filling out and there are Archetypes which have been left unexplored within it, which is unusual given that some of the already published Psionic classes fall outside of what I might consider an Archetype. **I am uncertain about a few classes, partially because I know they have developed a rather large fan base (I'm looking at you Avenger) and also because I'm uncertain if they genuinely do fill a niche (Other than for example, divine strike - I explicitly want to avoid filling power / role grids for the sake of filling said grids - I want to fill out a roster based on classes which not only do something different, but have a genuinely different flavour and appeal than others. What do you guys think? Have I missed certain classes? If so, what are they and what niche do they fill that is worth inclusion? Classes and Roles - A little more specific: Multiple Roles: If you read the second post, than it's easy to see how multiple roles might work within a class. All powers are based on a baseline, so for example a Fighters level 5 daily on its own might do 3d10+str damage, while a Rogues does 3d10+dex. The Rogue will of course still out damage a Defender Fighter because Striker damage features will become more prominent. However, if a Fighter were to choose a Striker build rather than a tank build, his Striker damage mechanic would allow him to keep pace with the Rogue using the same powers which a tanking mechanic would use for tanking (although, it's unlikely a tank and striker would want the same powers, in the same way that Bow Rangers want different powers than melee Rangers). I would also like to make a note: It is my feeling that Defenders powers often alter their marks and triggers in significant and cool ways - while this is not completely unheard of for other classes, it is likely that all classes will see powers that alter the conditions and or trigger effects of their class features. Strikers: As I've mentioned already, I'd like to take away "point and shoot" type play styles. Striker damage mechanics should require set up. Here are a handful of examples which are floating around in my head: These may not be the final products and are not fully fleshed out but they're a good start. Additionally, I find strikers in particular to be oddly balanced where certain strikers are undisputed kings of single target DPR and others are almost controller like in their AoE DPR. One goal will be to unify single target damage slightly more while maintaining differences between classes - this will likely be done by broadening the utility of damage dealing powers to make a rangers 3d10+dex level 5 daily feel and behave differently from a Rogues 3d10+dex level 5 daily. (Examples, not real numbers). That having been said, classes that are strong vs. multitargets will likely remain strong vs. multitargets relative to the rest of the roster, the goal is to bring the single target a little more in line - AoE powers will do less single target than a single target power, and likely have less utility. Rogues: As standard. Rangers: They gain their bonus damage effect when they attack a creature that has been affected by an allies class ability this turn (this includes triggering a Defenders Mark, but not for example simply being marked by a defender). They're bonus damage effect is likely to be a free basic attack against the enemy of choice. In addition they gain +1 to hit when attacking a different enemy then they did on the previous turn (This is incentive to prevent the game from degenerating into Rogue+Ranger blows up enemy A together, then Rogue+Ranger blows up enemy B together, then Rogue+Ranger blows up... etc...) Twin Strike removed, other at-wills likely buffed.  Rangers are very self-sufficient as is, I am likely to give them something to increase their ability to work with a party. Monk: Bonus damage effect on movement. Potentially based upon distance traveled. Bonus damage unspecified. I would like both Rangers and Monks to be about multiple attacks per round, to this end - in order to differentiate the two I am likely to give rangers more burst damage while giving Monks more of a steady damage mechanic (perhaps stealing the Avengers rerolled attack dice and giving the Avenger something different if that class makes it in). Barbarians: Additional damage when the target is bloodied. Possibly also after charges. I'd also like to give Barbarians a slight focus on cleaving to additional targets. Fighter: Improved Power Attack, I am likely to give Striker Fighters the ability to use an improved version of the Power Attack feat as their striker damage mechanic. I am uncertain of the specific details at this time. Warden: Uncertain how I would work it at this point but the idea in my head is that certain powers would continue to give them "forms", however they could switch between forms which had been activated in that combat at will as a free action - any turn in which they shifted into another form would give them access to their striker damage mechanic. I'd like to include a mechanic to prevent the Warden from shifting between their two best forms over and over again. Swordmage: Likely to have the name changed and the swords only restriction lifted. Perhaps adjust the key stats as well. I have 3 ideas, unsure of which I will settle with just yet: 1. damage triggers on either teleporting or teleporting your foes. 2. damage triggers on any foe with a debuff (does not include defender marks or any mechanic which functions like a warlocks curse does in standard 4E). Potentially want to include some strong ability to give an enemy weaknesses to certain types of damage through powers. Death/Dark Knight (Name uncertain at this point): Sacrifice HP in order to deal additional damage. There will be a limit on the amount of HP that can be sacrificed. Very likely the Death Knight will have a bit of a vampire theme and have plenty of abilities which allow it to steal HP. This having been said, the idea will be that its damage mechanic is costly enough that if he sacrifices the maximum amount of HP every round he will very quickly kill himself. Shamans: I may decide to turn shamans into a damage dealer (ranged). I am uncertain at this juncture. What do you think? The Warlock/Sorcerer Problem: In standard 4E I feel as though both of these classes falls a little flat in the Striker department short of extreme optimization. Both try to have a controller off specialization going on and while the flavour is very different, I'm not sure there is enough of a niche for two arcane ranged damage dealers. One of these will likely turn into a controller. Which one do you think it should be? Why? I lean towards Warlock for a few reasons: 1. The idea of a warlock to me is all about curses and status effects. 2. Sorcerers are more about uncontrollable magic bursting from within them which strikes me as more direct damage and striker like. These are ideas which are less solid then the other ones discussed thus far: Sorcerers as damage dealers: Any square attacked by them (including when they attack a creature in said square, whether or not they hit) is considered to be overflowing with magic - their spells aren't as tightly woven and careful as other arcanists. When they cast spells at these squares in subsequent turns, they gain their bonus damage effect. This also adds a form of soft control to their powers, which I feel is a nice touch to the Sorcerer's controllery side without stepping on any controller toes. The Warlock as a controller: Before 4E was originally released, WoTC said that the sorcerer would be controller and, their spells would leave residual effects (such as a fire ball leaving the sorcerer with a flaming shield or some such) - the Warlock will have a close range (blast zone 1) aura which will likely provide a form of soft control (or trigger his controller class feature, more on those later). Various Warlock Powers will leave residual effects on this aura much like the original plan for the sorcerer. The Warlock will also likely wear leather and, more likely than not be a little more caught up in melee range as a result of his aura than the Wizard (constitution may become the Warlocks main stat rather then a secondary stat, I am unsure). Avengers: While I'm not sure if I will include the Avenger yet, I'd like to use it to illustrate something: A striker power should usually be more in the hands of the player than the Avengers striker bonus feature currently is - the Avengers feature revolves more around how you're DM plays enemies. There is a place for this kind of class feature mind you - which brings me to my next topic: Keep this point in mind as we go forward. Controllers: While I must admit, of all the pieces of fourth edition which I am least familiar with it's probably controllers. Which isn't to say that I know nothing of them, but just that I am least familiar with the mechanics. That having been said, it is my feeling that controller class features are in need of the most work. Like Strikers, Controllers should have a trigger and a bonus effect - unlike Strikers (and this connects to what I was saying about the Avenger extra damage mechanic) this isn't necessarily something which the player is in control of. Rather this bonus effect is likely going to be soft control "If enemies do ________, _________ unfavourable thing happens". While I am less far along on my list of ideas for controllers here are some example triggers and some example controller effects: Example Trigger: (some of these might need to read, on your next turn depending on the effect being triggered) -You mark an ally. If enemies move next to that ally trigger bonus effect. -When enemies move through difficult terrain caused by one of your powers trigger bonus effect. -Mark an enemy, if it moves trigger bonus effect. -If enemies make opportunity attacks trigger bonus effect. -Mark an ally, if enemies move away from that ally trigger bonus effect. Example Bonus Effect: -Extra hit chance (especially useful on AoE). -Penalty to any saving throws vs. conditions applied this round. -Penalty to attack/defence. -Straight up damage (must be in a different way than striker bonus features, for example you may pair it with the difficult terrain trigger above - X damage dealt each square moved through). -Any blast zone used this turn is X squares larger. -Forced movement X squares larger. Defenders and Leaders: To be extrapolated on later. Non-Combat Progression- The problem with feats like skill focus and others is that they are a generally, completely unrelated to combat, where any optimized build can find feats that fill out better combat related functions. Non-Combat feats are thus generally considered to be a waste. That having been said, there is a reason for this feat (and others) to exist - though I am not 100% sold on this idea yet, I'm contemplating creating a separate non-combat progression for characters. It would be slower because there are less non-combat feats than there are combat feats, you might for example gain one non-combat feat every 4-5 levels. This is to allow players to have that non-combat customization without gimping their builds. Examples of feats which may be included: Skill Focus (in the case of perception and insight which can effect combat rather drastically: the skill focus bonus cannot be used in order to see ambushes coming or gain benefit during combat including acting on surprise rounds or detecting stealthed enemies - you'd have to use a real feat on that, skill focus would basically be useful for skill challenges, finding that hidden journal in the professors office, making the athletics check to jump across the chasm, etc..) Skill Training: I believe a feat like this exists but I'm not 100% sure - in any case, add a skill to your list of trained skills (in light of an entire character progression path being dedicated to none combat and this being a major reason why, it might be appropriate to trim the number of skills classes get at base - I am unsure and want your opinions. Learn Language: While many PCs start knowing many languages (all PC Elves know both common and Elven by default for example) there are real life examples of people who know many, many languages. Being non-combat this would be a good choice. I'd like to expand on this list, also I feel the need to specify that progression on it would be slow: I don't want 30th level characters walking around who know 5 different languages just because they ran out of useful skills. Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies: At this point I very much like the way Paragon Paths work. They are specific and defining aspects of a character and frequently, very flavourful. My one issue is that they are often defining enough that many of them should be available from character creation. For example, a Psionic character who's intended to be a Pyrokineticist, it stretches the imagination to say a character who is intended to have a psionic connection to fire spends his first ten levels throwing around force effects and psionic force damage and then all of the sudden at level 11 begins to do so with fire rather than force. I would like to find a way to allow (but not necessitate) the selection of a paragon path from earlier levels. I am unsure of how to do this without disrupting game balance. Untested thought: Include a feat in each Paragon Path which can ONLY be taken in heroic tier and embodies some aspect of the Paragon Path enough to say that the character is at the very least invested in the character defining choice. In the case of the Pyrokineticist he may take a feat at level 1 which allows him to deal fire damage instead of force damage and his taking the Paragon Path only demonstrates him finally learning to master his Pyrokinetic abilities. This does come with some issues of course - will be revisited properly when I get around to Paragon levels. Epic Destinies: At this juncture I am unsure of what to think of epic destinies. In one breath, I do feel that Epic levels need some definition in the same way Paragon levels are defined by Paragon Paths. However, I feel as though Epic Destinies, unlike Paragon Paths, are unspecific and generic. Moreover I feel as though Epic Destinies are dominated by fewer choices and the choices available hardly feel interesting or flavourful.  How does everyone else feel about Epic Destinies? Am I alone in my feelings on them? If not, what solutions might we come up with to solve the problem?
#4 Bobfred21 Aug 22, 2010 20:24:19	Reserved.
#5 Bobfred21 Aug 22, 2010 20:24:30	Reserved.
#6 Bobfred21 Aug 22, 2010 20:28:22	Reserved.
#7 Bobfred21 Aug 22, 2010 20:28:44	Last Reserve.
#8 gdub411 Aug 22, 2010 22:09:05	Okay, I 'll start. Avenger. Your particular religeon's boogie man. When the church doesn't want to dirty their hands they call out this particular nasty to do the deed. It seems to me it fills a niche. Just a little tid bit in the hope it might convince you to keep this class.l
#9 Bobfred21 Aug 23, 2010 1:00:58	Fair enough. What I'm really looking for when I look at reasons to keep a class is an archetype for it to fill. For example, there's no real reason the role you mentioned can't just be any other striker class that's loyal to the church. I could see a slight reflavoring work I suppose - more of a Van Helsing type Archetype, which is something that hasn't quite been covered yet. What is it about the Avenger that you love and would like to see preserved?
#10 Astromath Aug 23, 2010 8:13:07	I'm with gdub.  It may true that a church could use any striker from their congregation, some of the more "militant" or "paranoid" churches would want to use a striker that has a divine investment.  One that is less apt to change sides. Clerics: The preachers, the teachers, the in-your-face converters, the medics, the promoters of divine doctrine Paladins: The crusaders, the army, the protectors of divine doctrine Avengers: The police force, the punishers of divine doctrine
#11 dropthembones Aug 23, 2010 8:48:28	but isn't all that stuff just fluff that is mutable.
#12 AbdulAlhazred Aug 23, 2010 10:02:03	Honestly I don't think classes are archetypes. CHARACTERS are built on the basis of some sort of archetype, but class is just a tool. Rogue provides the toolset needed to build characters who take advantage of stealth, concealment, disguise, trickery, etc. The rogue could conform to the trickster archetype or the grim anti-hero. Classes bring various things to the game that can support various archetypes, but you could make an anti-hero of most any class for instance. Some types correspond more to specific classes than others, the holy warrior to the paladin, but even holy warrior isn't really a basic archetype. Consider that Percival is still a knight and so are Kay, etc. but they aren't all heroes and they certainly don't all conform to a single archetype, yet they would all be fighters or paladins. Seems to me that you want to have classes that provide specific distinct mechanical options. I think 4e has actually done this fairly well. A couple of classes might seem somewhat redundant, like Runepriest, but is it really worth rewriting half the game to get rid of a couple classes? Just merge their fluff into other classes that overlap with them and leave it at that. A STR cleric can be fluffed as using runes for instance, no big deal, then you don't have to use the Runepriest class. Of course at that point there's not much reason NOT to use it either. In other words so what if a couple classes seem to overlap? Personally I'd say if you're wanting to make a better 4e then the place to concentrate on IS the core of the rules. There's plenty of room for improvement there. The real question you have to ask is where are you getting the best bang for your buck? Tinkering with core rules or building a really compelling campaign setting. Remember, you have to find players to play in your variant rule system, which isn't always that easy. I remember the long-lost days of tinkering with game systems. Most of what I learned from that is it isn't really worth it. If it is what you like doing then by all means proceed, but if you actually are into running games it isn't a good use of time.
#13 Garthanos Aug 23, 2010 11:31:50	Fair enough. What I'm really looking for when I look at reasons to keep a class is an archetype for it to fill. For example, there's no real reason the role you mentioned can't just be any other striker class that's loyal to the church. I could see a slight reflavoring work I suppose - more of a Van Helsing type Archetype, which is something that hasn't quite been covered yet. What is it about the Avenger that you love and would like to see preserved? Mechanically it is another type of Striker all together its like the fencing master who is able to focus on a target perceptually to the exclusion of all others its demonstrates preternaturally reliably (divinely guided disciplined perceptive attacks )it is focused vengeance. If I wanted I might be able to use a Slayer with melee training to wisdom or something mechanically irrational like that and nerf my damage because discipline and perception and divinely inspired guidance are somehow an inferior basis of a martial style ;-p  .. then give them multiclass in paladin for that Defender dabbling. (encounter powers are useable right?)