| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1neithermanAug 01, 2009 23:04:38 | Progressive Disease's I am displeased with the lack of character options in 4e at low level's and the relative insignifigance of the choices players make in regards to their characters development compared to most other RPG systems. I am also displeased with the character options available at higher starting levels (levels 11-19 im looking at you!) I would LIKE for people to be able to Hyper-Specialize the way you could in 3.5, Yes, it made your character more difficult to keep alive, but it also made for more intresting game play, and frequently more intresting character deaths. Suggested theoretical solution: 4E presents the most refined and well executed disease/poison rules ever. Alot of the old templates from 3.5 were "magical diseases" in most settings. (Vampirism,lycanthropy,ghoul-fever,etc) What if we setup some largely incurable long term diseases to represent these conditions? what if these diseases had both negative AND positive effects? What if these diseases only move to the next state when an infected player character gains a level? Sample Disease: Troll-Rot (A Level 30 Disease) (Insert Flavor Text Here) ----Initial State INT-4 CHA-4 STR+4 Disease is easily curable at this stage ----Second Stage Base Move speed -5 Character may now use Weapons of one size category larger than normal Disease is curable but requires the intervention of a specialist. ----Third Stage Refl-5 Will-5 Fort+2 AC+2 Disease is no Longer curable by anything short of divine intervention. ----Fourth Stage WIS-2 DEX-2 (Insert undecided upon skill penalty) Character Gains Regeneration 5 ----Fifth Stage Base Move Speed -5 (for a total penalty of -10) AC+2 Fort+2 ----Final Stage (six levels since PC is infected) Character Loses One encounter power of his choosing Character Gains Troll Healing as a racial at will reaction. Disease is PERMANENT. *This sample was very rushed and is likely imbalanced and full of holes* WHAT KIND OF FEEDBACK/HELP WOULD BE MOST USEFUL: 1.Anyone have good ideas for intresting diseases players might not want cured? 2.Anyone already doing this and have a disease they want to share? 3.Anyone have any templates for printing this so it will be formatted largely the same way as wotc's stuff? 4.Anyone see any glaring problems or stupid mistakes in this idea? (before I make a few dozen of these) 5.Anyone have Suggestions on how to Flavor this stuff for an actual campaign? (See below) 6.Compliments,comments,flames, Etc? WHY WOULD I DO THIS?? (long version) I should probably go ahead and make clear that my DnD group is vehemently mechanical. Our house rule is the ever popular "you may RP all you wish, but do not expect anyone to RP back" as such 3.5 with its plethora of templates Level adjustment's, prestige classes,pretty pretty walls of arithematic, and VERY workable rules for converting monsters for player use, is much loved. 4E's succinct and well organized combat is a signifigant draw for us, BUT without a more intriguing character progression has not garnered much of our time. Our only other complaint about 4e is that any munchkin worth his pointy shoes can completely destroy the balance of the game around lvl 23, but thats easy to fix. any character who reaches level 23 explodes....twice. This means I have no idea how to "flavor" these mechanics. Its not my thing. If someones got some ideas I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR THEM, so that I can rip them off wholesale for use in our campaign. |
| #2RustmonsterAug 02, 2009 10:22:04 | 4.Anyone see any glaring problems or stupid mistakes in this idea? (before I make a few dozen of these) The movement speed. Firstly, why would becoming a troll lower your movement speed? Secondly, why would it lower your movement speed by such absurd amounts? When you get to stage 2, you lose 5 speed. Now Dwarves can't move, most other races have a movement of 1, and Elves and other fast races have a movement of 2. When you get to stage 5, you are up to a -10 penalty. At this stage no character can move. What were you intending for this to do? |
| #3keytapAug 02, 2009 10:35:57 | The movement speed. I would apply some common sense and say that he is using "feet" as units, and not "squares". Reducing by 5 feet is reducing by 1 square. |
| #4erk_Aug 02, 2009 10:38:19 | Mm. All the imbalance and minmaxing of 3.x with none of the really flavourful mechanics. Nothing like a few static bonuses and penalties to crank up that customisation. I realise this isn't intended to be a balanced final version but it's so ridiculously rough that I can't make any statement besides "this is really absurd". -10 to speed? -5 to two NADs and +2 to one? The attribute penalties/bonuses at first stage alone indicate you really don't understand the math of 4e, and I think you should try to learn at least a little of that before you try to make complex custom systems. You'll find soon, I think, that there's more customisation to the game than you thought. |
| #5neithermanAug 02, 2009 11:47:21 | Sorry about the movement confusion I was indeed using Feet instead of spaces. Thats my bad. As far reduced movement from becoming a troll, That was more a thought related to the fact that its a disease, not the fact that you are becoming troll like.Mm. All the imbalance and minmaxing of 3.x with none of the really flavourful mechanics. Nothing like a few static bonuses and penalties to crank up that customisation. I realise the sample is completely imbalanced. I didnt even think about the numbers yet. I only included it so people would have a complete understanding of what my idea was. Part of the idea of this thread is to find out if the basic concept is solid BEFORE I spend all the time to create balanced diseases. I know how to do the math, but my sample took five minutes to throw together. when I create a balanced one,and do all the math to check it it will take at least an hour maybe more. I dont want to make that investment until I have more feedback. To give you some idea, of what might be ideal; I was thinking each stage should be even enough that a player looking at it should be torn about wether or not he WANTS to cure it or not. I should have clarified in my first post: Im not looking for feedback on "Troll-Rot" its crap and I know it, just on the Basic concept behind it. Also if someones got a nice template for this that would be just great still havent found one for diseases/poisons. Once again if someones got some awesome flavor they want to add to this I'm all ears. EDIT:just realised I missed something in my response I'm not saying theres no customisation in 4E, theres lots its just that a)some characters have alot less choices than others. Warlocks in particular seem to get railroaded pretty hard. b)ALOT of the choices you make are not particularly meaningful. c)Some choices are so downright underpowered no real munchkin would EVER consider them. |
| #6kuonjiAug 02, 2009 12:03:37 | EDIT:just realised I missed something in my response Just out of curiousity, since these were problems in other editions, like 3.5, how did you fix them before? |
| #7neithermanAug 02, 2009 13:48:02 | Just out of curiousity, since these were problems in other editions, like 3.5, how did you fix them before? ers for player use in 3.5 I dont feel like it was ever an issue in 3.5; In 3.0 it was a problem but by the time 3.5 rolled around there was enough compatible content that It was not a big issue. Also it was not difficult to convert monsters for player use in 3.5. In 4e it just isnt practical to come up with a blanket rule for that. I've seen a number of good suggestions. but they almost always have alot of complex caveat rules involved that limit their functionality. I dont see a good simple solution without reintroducing ECL to the equation and whenever I mention putting ECL in 4E people start to cringe. |
| #8erk_Aug 02, 2009 15:20:17 | I should have clarified in my first post: Im not looking for feedback on "Troll-Rot" its crap and I know it, just on the Basic concept behind it. Also if someones got a nice template for this that would be just great still havent found one for diseases/poisons. Once again if someones got some awesome flavor they want to add to this I'm all ears. My point is, the example is so bad that one can't look past it. If this is what we're to draw on as an example of what you intend, it stinks. If we're to invent our own, more balanced, idea for what you intend, then we can't look at the example at all and it's just a nonsequitor. I don't know of any disease templates so far; as far as I know it's basically a "wing it" thing for now. Wouldn't be surprised to see em in DMG2. EDIT:just realised I missed something in my response a) is easier to fix with simple houserules, like making all class abilities key from the same primary chosen at character creation. As soon as warlocks have straight con- or cha- powers they're no more railroaded than anyone else. Same goes for clerics and paladins and the other phb1 classes with split primaries. b) doesn't make sense to me. What do you consider "meaningful"? In my experience nearly every choice a player makes is pretty meaningful. Almost all the abilities in the books are useful and each choice significantly defines a character's function. c) is your opinion, but frankly I don't think there are many choices that fall into this category. Careful Shot and....? nearly every ability is extremely useful in the right circumstances, as the vast number of CO builds using different concepts demonstrate. Even were these not the case, I don't really see how your diseases help any of these situations. What exactly are they supposed to be like? How do they make character choices meaningful or make certain options viable for munchkins? If your example doesn't make it clear, try to do so yourself with words. ers for player use in 3.5 It's odd that you decry some character choices as something "no munchkin would ever use" and then talk about bringing ECL back. I don't mean to sound harsh, but you really are coming across as someone who doesn't know what he wants, either because you don't know 4e very well or because you just plain prefer 3.x; the latter is fine, but the former is a weird state to be in while trying to make new systems. For what you're describing, a far easier and far more balanced way to do it would be to pick a current PC race or even a MM race that's close to the monster, and give it a balanced encounter ability that matches closer to the monster's abilities in the MM. This can be downgraded as far as you like to be level1 appropriate. This takes an eye for mechanics, but less of one than your diseases will. It'd even be easier to design races from scratch than balance the diseases as you've described them so far, in my opinion. A few stats, a power, two feats per tier, and you have a pretty decent race. |
| #9HebitsuikazaAug 02, 2009 20:17:15 | Why should a disease have a positive effect? I don't recall ever hearing someone say "I hope I get cancer so my intellect goes up!" or Olympic Athletes aiming to get aids to give them that extra edge in the competition. Even rabies, although it boosts your adreline levels and makes you stronger and tougher, causes you to lose your mind, hallucinate and ends up burning your body out and killing you soon enough. Even when talking about magical diseases, the penalties should SO far outweigh any potential benefits that no character would want to get it and anyone who did get it would want to get rid of it ASAP. |
| #10neithermanAug 02, 2009 21:50:14 | Why should a disease have a positive effect? If this were real life I would agree with you. It's not. It's Fiction. There are plenty of diseases in 3.5 that in the long run have positive effects. These also exsist in popular fiction (movies/games/books/television) Erk: I get it you dont like the idea without a finished product if you cant ignore a block of text and comment on the CONCEPT, then just be patient. I have gotten enough positive feedback on other forums that I will soon be putting together a couple of balanced diseases for some play-testing. As far as my motivation goes; I think I have given plenty of reasons; but I just dont see why it should matter so much to you why I'm doing it. The idea is to add an option without removing any of the exsisting options or changing any exsisting core rules. I like the idea of creating custom races, but there are two catches with that: 1. You pick a race at character creation. Thats the only time you pick a race. You can contract a disease at anytime in your characters development. With a few exceptions, your race choice doesnt cause any real changes further down the line. It gives you a couple boosts and an ability or two and then thats it. 2.I dont like the idea of adding penaltys to a race in 4e. EVER. its a really bad idea. |
| #11erk_Aug 02, 2009 21:59:54 | I have commented on the concept, which is - to put it more bluntly - that I don't really see what it adds to the game besides some static bonuses and penalties, and an extremely difficult to balance mechanic. If you're as heart-set on it as you appear, go ahead; it's your time and your game. |
| #12HebitsuikazaAug 03, 2009 4:00:00 | If this were real life I would agree with you. It's not. It's Fiction. The problem is here that you aren't creating diseases, you are creating a system of getting free bonuses outside of normal character building. If you do not make the "diseases" debilitating then players will be TRYING to get the disease that best supports their character concept. The players will be TRYING to get their characters sick. If these are real diseases, then that is brain-numbingly dumb. You go to a ghoul or a werewolf and take off your armor and beg them to bite you so you can be more badass? Can you understand why that just doesn't work? But players WILL do this if they see that whatever bonuses you assign to the diseases makes their character better and the penalties are neglible-- perhaps because they are penalized on attributes or abilities that they have no intention of even ever using. |
| #13neithermanAug 03, 2009 9:05:38 | The problem is here that you aren't creating diseases, you are creating a system of getting free bonuses outside of normal character building. If you do not make the "diseases" debilitating then players will be TRYING to get the disease that best supports their character concept. They arent free, and the penalties wont be "Negligible" by any stretch of the imagination. That said I have seen that happen in 3.5 with both ghouls and lycanthrops in 3.5, but not quite the way you describe. No-one fights a ghoul without armor they dont need to. You fight ghouls you WILL eventually contract ghoul fever. Kinda inevitable. They just choose not to treat it, and die a few days later; returning as a ghoul. it was pretty questionable whether it was a good idea for his character, but he did it anyway. That character lasted until he met a cleric. Yes people will only keep a disease they think will work for their concept, but ideally when I'm finished it should provide either increased risk, or signifigant loss of capability in the same general area as any concept that would find the benefits particularly desirable. Whats more a DM is not necesarrily required to explain the entire disease to his players if he chooses. Note: I wasnt aware this was the "justify a reason you want to add content to 4e" I wasnt aware that was a requirment of generating balanced usable content. If you dont like something, no-one is going to even attempt to make you use it. This has to be the WORST content creation forum I have ever seen. I posted this in 4 different forums and this is the only one where people provided the bare minimum of useful feedback and then complained for the rest of their post. Quite frankly I'm not going to keep waste my time here when other places provide better advice with far less pointless aggression. |
| #14RustmonsterAug 04, 2009 11:20:11 | The only question I have is... Why disease? It seems that you want to allow more mechanical variety for players. But when I personally think "Well, how shall I allow more variety?", I don't then immediatly scream out "DISEASE!" There are far more logcal ways to allow character variety, like background skills, or some sort of Boon and Flaw system that gives (minor) mechanical gains for (minor) mechanical penalties. It wouldn't be the sort of idiotic munchkin-fuel that 3E had for Flaws. No gaining a feat. It would be something like a +2 to some situation and a -2 to another situation. Disease just seems A) Illogical as a player choice, and B) Extrmely drastic. Your sample troll disease, even while aware that you fully deny that this is the sort of thing you actually want to make, is extremely drastic in how it changes the game. It's outrageous. |
| #15valcienAug 06, 2009 2:07:35 | The players will be TRYING to get their characters sick. If these are real diseases, then that is brain-numbingly dumb. You go to a ghoul or a werewolf and take off your armor and beg them to bite you so you can be more badass? This doesn't make sense. Are you saying that werewolves didn't have benefits before? No one wanted to become a vampire for immortality? This is a critique on players in general and not the idea, which is valid. This hinges on players caring about their characters, which has been a problem for a while. I.E. killing off their characters so they can reroll with better stats. Completing the ceremony of becoming a Lich. Is a spellscar so different? |