Any thoughts?
4e grants powers & feats by Char level
because guys are stuck in that one class progression
If a guy takes 2 levels of Strong, and then takes Fast1
does he get the 3rd char level Encounter or the 1st Fast Atwill power?
Cause, if we list the class powers for each class level, we dont know if the char is actually supossed to get his 4th Level Feat instead of choosing one of the 1st Fast Atwills
Will that be a core difference of DD4e and 4EM?
DD has the one Feat/Power charlevel table
while in 4eM you get whatever kind of power is right for the ??
If we want to keep things a simple as possible, we could just keep the D&D classes as they are and re-flavor them for a Modern setting...
Cleric
Fighter
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Warlock
Warlord
Wizard
If we strip magic out of the equation for a baseline modern setting (ie mundane reality)
That would leave us with
Fighter
Ranger
Rogue
Warlord
Soo...
Fighter = tough hero?
Ranger = strong hero?
Rogue = fast hero?
Warlord = charismatic hero?
Hmmmm.... this is going to take more time than I have available right now... i'll have to come back later.
but which DD4e class has all the charm & diplomacy & perform for Charismatics?
I can figure out BigAl and Jimmy The Squeeler,
but what class would Princess (the gal that dont use guns knives or fists) take?
I mean, when your best combat move is Surrender As Distraction, what is that in DD4e terms?
Also,
I dont think anyone that uses a gun will want to take Fighter
Multiclassing throws it in the BrainScrambler.
In 4E multiclassing is virtualy canned by making it a «feat». Also a maximum of two classes are permitted. Gone are the days of super characters that are lvl 2 Plumbers + lvl 5 Ballet dancers + lvl 4 Architects... LOL
Keyword in 4E is «balance» between classes. Its going to be the same in Modern 4E. Basic classic (smart/though/etc) will be put to the garbage to make room for a «more palatable» set of classes. Ex. : Soldier, Medic, etc
Talent trees will be replaced by Career paths that emulate the Paragon/Epic system.
All in all its going to be a pretty strait forward translation of 4E into Modern. The formula works. Wotc now has a captive audience with this edition. All they have to do is shurn out the variations of the system to make money off the other segments of the market...
People are wrong in assuming that Modern 4E will retain all the building block of the Original Modern d20. They did it with D&D and they will do it with Modern.
Cause it looks to me that YOU are part of WE that are doing it right here.
If we get rid of MAS,
and eliminate the free multiclassing,
and drop the Strong/Smart basics for CarreerClasses from 1st,
and ditch the Tallent Trees
.... what game are we playing, cause it looks like D&D with guns instead of Modern
(and CyberDave & Co have been working on that already)
oh, I guess its not so bad... as long as we keep the Wealth System we can still call it Modern
Who is this THEY you speak of?
Cause it looks to me that YOU are part of WE that are doing it right here.
If we get rid of MAS,
and eliminate the free multiclassing,
and drop the Strong/Smart basics for CarreerClasses from 1st,
and ditch the Tallent Trees
.... what game are we playing, cause it looks like D&D with guns instead of Modern
(and CyberDave & Co have been working on that already)
oh, I guess its not so bad... as long as we keep the Wealth System we can still call it Modern
Sorry my friend. I think Santa won't deliver on your wish list. I am simply looking at things in a pragmatic way. Without emotions or expectations. ;)
We are not sitting back hoping for some publisher to make a 4EM that has what we want,
we are going to make it right here, and now
yes, pragmatically we can say
Since WoC aint going to put this out anytime soon, we will put some versions together, and
As such,
Guys, what is the downside to pulling the Feat/Power list out of the XP table and putting a 10 level one under each Modern Class? A guy that takes 1Str/1Fast/1Smart/1Cha will get the 1st level Powers from all four.... but he will be a 4th level character that doesnt get a Feat because he hasnt gone up any class level high enough to get that 4th level feat
If this happens, the guy will have a whole lotta AtWills but be missing out on the more
d20Modern takes care of this by front loading the +0BAB, so a 1/1/1/1 might have just a +1BAB.
Whatcha think
My advice is to build a controller from the ground up and just reflavor the rest.
Edit: this is, of course, not counting specific game settings where a cyberneticist with nanites or a high tech gadget person could create a greater variety of things happen that is more like magical effects
You need four roles to work: Striker, Controller, Leader and Defender
Where does Princess the queen of feminine conniving and charm fit into this?
She's a Striker, right?
oh... wait.... she never strikes at anyone, since she never caries a weapon
What role is Faceman Investigator - Charismatic Hero - Bard?
Cause Me & Jimmy will probably end up as as a gunbunny Ranger and a Rogue,
and BigAl is a Thug (ranger, since he uses a gun)
.... so I guess Bard will be Rogue?
good diversity of a gunbunny-thinker, a thug, a sneak, and the Princess
all rogues & rangers
Where does Princess the queen of feminine conniving and charm fit into this?
She's a Striker, right?
oh... wait.... she never strikes at anyone, since she never caries a weapon
What role is Faceman Investigator - Charismatic Hero - Bard?
Cause Me & Jimmy will probably end up as as a gunbunny Ranger and a Rogue,
and BigAl is a Thug (ranger, since he uses a gun)
.... so I guess Bard will be Rogue?
good diversity of a gunbunny-thinker, a thug, a sneak, and the Princess
all rogues & rangers
I think the princess you describe would be in the controller Role using all sorts of powers that influence the conditions and actions of others; allies and enemies alike.
Also,
I dont think anyone that uses a gun will want to take Fighter
You're right, gun bunnies will want to be rangers or rogues... bare knuckle boxers and street-samurai will want to take fighter...
I think the important thing to remember about 4e is not the classes but the roles. You need four roles to work: Striker, Controller, Leader and Defender.
Okay I'll play this game of yours...
During character creation player chooses a Role (striker, controller, leader or defender). He receives a set of «generic» powers tied to the chosen role. Character is considered level 1 and classless. To round up the character he also receives skills, feats and background feats (see 4E/PHB2). Upon reaching level 2 player selects a Class keyed to his Role.
That's all for now.
Tough hero is naturally a defender.
He has those nifty xtra hp and DR abilities. That is clearly definitive of a defender for me.
The strong hero is a melee striker.
I think this is quite obvious. It also works out well if we change the damage bonus with each attack from the melee smash talents to a tiered damage dice bonus like the 4e Strikers (Ranger, Rogue, Warlock) have.
The dedicated hero is a leader.
They have improved healing and inproved aid another.
They clearly fulfill the basic principles of the leader (healing and buffing).
The smart hero is a... Striker.
I know, but hear me out on this one.
If you change the exploit weakness ability from an attack bonus to a damage bonus once per round, it really seems to track well.
The charismatic hero is a controller. Maybe.
I know they get a little of the buffing power of leaders from their coordinate talent, but they fail to perform the prime function of the leader role... the healing. The Trick talent hints at their controller nature, as does captivate.
I will admit it doesn't entirely fit right, given that the mage is the only controller example I have access to.
Any thoughts?
In movies the smart types always find ways to use the environment to their advantage including hacking building systems, subverting security, building traps etc. Perhaps that could somehow be described in a power format. Trouble is that it always takes time to be in a place to set all that stuff up. hmm
making off with $47mil in diamonds takes planning & setup
A Str/Fast thief can survive fights he gets into,
a Smart/Fast thief knows how to not get into fights.
D&D Thief
DD3x Rogue
Modern Smart/Fast
DD4e ...um... NoMagic Wizard? NoMagic Cleric, cause I make the plans for the team, so I'm the leader?
I would say I could forget the classpowers and just look at the Class Skill lists,
but its 4e
We can actually see roles in most of the classes. The charismatic hero is a controller. Maybe. I know they get a little of the buffing power of leaders from their coordinate talent, but they fail to perform the prime function of the leader role... the healing. The Trick talent hints at their controller nature, as does captivate.
I will admit it doesn't entirely fit right, given that the mage is the only controller example I have access to.
Any thoughts?
The only controller I can think of for Modern is the Psyker.
. . . . . . . . . . .
so, do we want to preserve the BasicClasses, multi-classing, and talent tree feel of Modern
or do it up as D&D with guns?
Not helpful in a Modern non-FX game
. . . . . . . . . . .
so, do we want to preserve the BasicClasses, multi-classing, and talent tree feel of Modern
or do it up as D&D with guns?
I think that's the real heart of the matter... what does 4E Modern look like?
D&D with guns or Modern with 4E rules...
personally I think D&D with guns (and new flavor text) is a LOT easier to do... but that doesn't mean it will be a better game.
then DD4e With Guns will be RangerPaloosa for 4[w]Ranged,
cause fighters & everyone else dont understand ranged weapons and are stuck at 1[w] ranged. One Ranger power gives like 4[w] just because the target is adjacent.... which works with guns just as well as crossbows or shurikens.
Of course, a Multiclassed guy would not take a 4[w]Ranged on adjacent,
but instead take a 7[w]Melee with the 17" pigsticker on his LeeEnfield (as hvy spear?)
I don't know. I think the charismatics would fit the leader roles. Giving group bonuses, rallying the troops, etc. seems all charisma. My bet is for the smart hero to fill the controller role in some way.
In movies the smart types always find ways to use the environment to their advantage including hacking building systems, subverting security, building traps etc. Perhaps that could somehow be described in a power format. Trouble is that it always takes time to be in a place to set all that stuff up. hmm
I will agree that they seem to, at first glance. The truth is they fail to perform the single role required for the leader class role. They do not provide healing. We could easily make them a leader by giving them healing ability akin to the warlord of 4e, but w/o granting additional abilities; they do fail at the definition of leader.
There can be no Leaders, cause the FieldOfficer cant cast healing
There will be no controllers, cause who is going to take Wizard that gets no spells
Anybody that owns a gun would be a Ranger
Maybe its time to put aside the 4 D&D ROLES & classes,
and come up with the 2 Modern Roles and some classes
Thugs & Experts
You hurt people with guns, knives, fisticuffs
or you deal with situations/people without opening with KillKillKill... Sneaks, Investigators, Faces, Trades
I think its becoming aparent that the D&D ROLES dont work in a non-FX game
There can be no Leaders, cause the FieldOfficer cant cast healing
There will be no controllers, cause who is going to take Wizard that gets no spells
Anybody that owns a gun would be a Ranger
Maybe its time to put aside the 4 D&D ROLES & classes,
and come up with the 2 Modern Roles and some classes
Thugs & Experts
You hurt people with guns, knives, fisticuffs
or you deal with situations/people without opening with KillKillKill... Sneaks, Investigators, Faces, Trades
Fighter (Striker)
Pointman (Leader)
Expert (Non-interpersonal Skills)
Face (Interpersonal Skills)
Alternatively, you could roll face into any or all of the above three by allowing characters to choose their own skills.
FX abilities and advanced classes could be handled by paragon and epic paths.
I also feel that best way to handle class is not to at heroic levels. Allow them to choose a role and specify later (paragon and epic), which is extremely to the existing system (in my opinion).
)But that brings up another point... what defines a role, and how do the classes from d20 modern fit into those roles? maybe we should start from that angle?
I have to say, that the more I look at this (converting Modern to 4E mechanics) the harder it seems to achieve.
Backstabbist is right... anyone wanting to be effective with modern fire-arms is going to play a ranger or possibly a rogue. leaving 75% of the 4E roles to be at a serious disadvantage in modern combat situations.
Thus, I think its important to introduce the idea of "short range" vs. "long range". The ranger (archer-build) is a sniper. A fighter could be arranged to be built as a brawler (melee) or a short range specialist, utilizing tools such as a flame thrower, shotgun, taser, grenade, etc. Consider limiting his power range to 30ft ...
As for the controller role, here are some more potential considerations - pilots (vehicular or aircraft weapon systems), demo experts, gadgeteers, trapsters, robot/drone controllers, or advanced weapon systems such as sonic, light, or radiation. And for the sci fi fans add psychics to that list as well.
The Player's Handbook 2 adds some new twists on Modern 4e possibilities to think about, including the Bard (charismatic hero).
For example, an automatic pistol does 1d10 (no bonus) with no bonus from any powers. Sample powers could include Burst (2W at -2 attack) or even Area of Effect sprays, etc.
The next step in cooler weapons, such as assault or sniper rifles (2d6 or 2d8?), could be exotic weapons. The final step in cool weapons, such as bazookas or shoulder mounted stingers or explosive arrow heads, could be considered magical items with Levels for game balance.
MPilot hit the D&D style on the head: Leaders are there for healing, not leading
...so why are they called Leaders?
Which fits what Ragitsu said, we dont need roles like Leader or Striker to be applied to guys that heal from the back or guys that are thiefs
Its like they made a RPG with only 4 R's to choose from
So lets not get all hung up on Role names.
Why bother paying attention to them at all.
Jenrock has a decent enough list
Take the DD3x Rogue, what role was he?
Pretty much anythig, including UseMagicDevice for healing: Recon,Striker,Expert,Face.
The role he was was the role you built & played him.
Fighter (Striker)
Pointman (Leader)
Expert (Non-interpersonal Skills)
Face (Interpersonal Skills)
.... and why does it matter if we have Ninja and Scout & Spi... a combat sneak and a noncombat sneak and a chatty sneak.
Putting FX in later is no problem:
Just as there are research mages and battle mages, the Classes can fit the 'role' with magic as well as mundne. BattleMage FieldMage Magician, FX classes tailored to the role they fill
4th DND is even more combat-orientated than the previous edition and combat in modern times (without magic) comes down to gunfights so nearly everybody would take the ranger....
What if you (or we, or they ;) ) would let go of the class system and create a flexible, multiple-option character building system, giving everybody the same number of skill points and feats, and everybody should decide what to buy with it, for example hp increasing or the hp die should be bought with those points....
this would feel more like world of darkness or the dark eye character system
... hmm , in my humble opinion the 4th edition system with roles won´t fit for a modern setting in a good way...
4th DND is even more combat-orientated than the previous edition and combat in modern times (without magic) comes down to gunfights so nearly everybody would take the ranger....
What if you (or we, or they ;) ) would let go of the class system and create a flexible, multiple-option character building system, giving everybody the same number of skill points and feats, and everybody should decide what to buy with it, for example hp increasing or the hp die should be bought with those points....
this would feel more like world of darkness or the dark eye character system
Then it wouldn't be 4E Modern... which is what we are trying to make.
But that doesn't mean you are wrong... I'm beginning to think the 4E mechanics just aren't set up for a Modern setting... Which i belive i said in a different thread when the idea first came up...
As for creating our own system...
well I'm doing that already... but i'm not going to discuss it on THESE boards... or with anonymous strangers on the internet...
The point is, if we have to redefine the roles classes, feats, and powers then its not 4E.
OK, i think I just convinced my self...
I'm out... good luck with this project everyone...
Take the DD3x Rogue, what role was he?
Pretty much anythig, including UseMagicDevice for healing: Recon,Striker,Expert,Face.
The role he was was the role you built & played him.
Fighter (Striker)
Pointman (Leader)
Expert (Non-interpersonal Skills)
Face (Interpersonal Skills)
.... and why does it matter if we have Ninja and Scout & Spi... a combat sneak and a noncombat sneak and a chatty sneak
Provided that we players are allowed to choose their own skill set: Pointman.
Ignore the Pointman-Leader correlation momentarily (or all together) and put each class in a single spectrum. On the far left is Fighter (all combat, no skills- your Thug). In the middle is the Pointman (a solid half and half), and on the far right is the Expert (all skills, no combat- your Expert). Put in whatever other roles you want to fill in the gaps (like a role 3/4 combat, 1/4 skills) and provide enough abilities for the Fighter to be a gunslinger or a sniper or a bruiser, and have the other roles have a similar range of abilities.
The point is, if we have to redefine the roles classes, feats, and powers then its not 4E
But thats the crux:
It still IS 4e.... just not D&D 4e.
4e has Roles and classes with powers,
and a M4e will have roles and classes with powers
just different powers for the different classes that fit different roles.....Modern powers for Modern Classes in Modern Roles
M4e is not DD4e, it is different.
It is not DD4e With Guns... if we kept the same Roles Classes & Powers it would be D&D with guns.
M4e can use the 4e method of having Roles Classes and Powers,
just different Modern roles classes & powers
Cause it would be a serious paint to try to fit modern classes into D&D roles (Leaders Must Divine Heal), while some Modern roles just have no D&D equivalent.
So what.
The 4e mechanic is Roles Classes & Powers,
and we can make a Modern set of those if we dont try to verbatim D&D use of the 4e system.
D&D's four roles obviously revolve around combat. In order to properly fit Modern, the roles could be kept to four, but they would scarcely resemble those of 4th Edition (with one or two exceptions).
Fighter (Striker)
Pointman (Leader)
Expert (Non-interpersonal Skills)
Face (Interpersonal Skills)
Alternatively, you could roll face into any or all of the above three by allowing characters to choose their own skills.
FX abilities and advanced classes could be handled by paragon and epic paths.
I also feel that best way to handle class is not to at heroic levels. Allow them to choose a role and specify later (paragon and epic), which is extremely to the existing system (in my opinion).
Jenrock, you've put forward the best idea for 4.0 modern yet, lets work with this.
It simply is not reasonable to do a quick and dirty conversion of 4.0 to modern, nor is it reasonable to bend the existing modern rules to fit 4.0. They're just too different.
We have to build this from the ground up. Defining roles and the various ways those roles can be played is the way to start.
However, I like the ability score based classes. Instead of trashing them, we should begin there and make each tree fit a role. That way each class (strong, dedicated, ect) has access to three of the four roles, with each class having a role that it is best at.
4.0 modern should not allow multiclassing to another base class. With six classes and four roles, every base is already doing a little multiclassing. A system of professions can provide additional multiclass abilities.
I suggest a separate progression of profession that parallels character development. Think of this as an extra feat, granted every odd numbered level to every class, from a unique table.
Each profession is a long series of prerequisite feats which grow in power. However there's nothing to stop a character from learning the basics of as many professions as he'd like. The profession system could be drawn from the existing advanced classes and the existing occupation list.
For the 4.0 modern version of paragon paths there is great potential for an already diverse system to get wildly out of hand. Like the present system of advanced classes, the new paragon paths should exist as a single set available to all base classes. There should be eleven of them: one for each role, then one for each pair of roles, and a final one to cover 'jack of all trades.'
I know this is massively complex. It's intended to be a ground-up creation.
will the new M4e classes coexist with D&D4e clases?
Will a party have a Cha, Strong, Ranger, Smart, and Cleric all mixed in?
Without these other classes to set the scale, we dont HAVE TO fit the same scale of potentcy... like the way Modern has much less healing than D&D we can have far fewer Healing Surges if there are no other classes that have a million of them to set the scale
Tough - Defender
Fast - Striker
Smart - Leader
Dedicated - Leader
Charismatic - Controller
Strong and Fast are both all about doing damage. Strong hits, fast shoots. Tough takes hits. Smart and Dedicated focus different aspects of Leader - Smart is about planning, dedicated is about aid. Healing would be done just like a Warlord - 4th Edition HP is less about bodily harm and more a mixture of bodily harm, fatigue, and other forces that make hits more meaningful. Charismatic is a non-combat controller - The Charismatic's powers would focus on out-of-combat situations, with the goal of overcoming an encounter without combat. The Charismatic hero sways groups. In the same way that a Wizard throwing Fireballs is useless against a group of fire immune creatures, a Charismatic hero is useless against a group of fanatically devoted minions... Unless they're throwing down an AoE fear effect, or the like.
The roles are easy, and don't require magic. You just need to get a little creative with it. Leader is easy - Warlord does all it's healing without magic. It's emotional, planning, or morale based. Controller doesn't need to be about damage, either. It could center around morale effects on the enemy. The hazard for it lies in creatures that are mindless - Zombies don't get afraid. However, under the normal d20 Modern rules, a Charismatic hero is a collection of delicious meats to a zombie anyway!
First, the basic principal of the single progression chart (presented in the PHB 4.0) where every character basically gains a +1/2 level to attacks and skills and a +1 per level bonus to defenses would be the foundation of the game.
Second, to distinguish each character from each other each character would have a "Occupation" that would augment their base character (this is where small +1 or +2 "class bonuses" to defense, attacks, free feats, skills, etc... would come from). Here is an quick example (obviously not fully fleshed out yet):
Athlete
+1 Reflex, +1 Fortitude, +0 Will
+1 Melee attack bonus
Skills: Athletics and 2 of the following. Acrobatics, Athletics, Endurance, Heal, or Initiative
Now, D20 modern was a toolkit where you could build any character you wanted with all different types of abilities. As i have said I think it will be classless and characters can choose from a list of leveled "powers" (obviously thy will need to change powers to stunts or something else). Powers will have themes such as "Martial Arts", "Gun", "Swordplay", "Tactics", etc... Here is a few examples:
__________________________
Iron Fist Level 1 At will Attack
Source: Martial Arts
Special: You must be unarmed
Attack STR vs Ref
Damage 1[w] + double Str mod
Judo Throw Level 1 encounter Attack
Special: You must be unarmed
Source: Martial Arts
Attack: STR vs FORT
Effect: target falls prone and is dealt 1[w] damage
Duel Pistols Level 1 Encounter (ranged) Attack
Source: Guns
Special: You must have 2 pistols armed
Attack Dex+2 vs Ref
Damage 1 [w] + dex mod
Flank 'em ! Level 1 Daily Attack
Source: tactics
Special: Target ally within sight may shift up to 3 squares and make a basic attack, you make attack
Attack: Int vs Ref
Damage: 2 [w] + int damage
________________________
*******
As far as a skills list, I hate to say it but the old list will be consolidated into a set like 4E.
Acrobatics
Athletics
Computers
Deception
Diplomacy
Endurance
Heal
History
Initiative
Mechanics
Occult
Perception
Religion
Science
Stealth
Streets
Technology
Wilderness
obviously i may have missed a few...
****
This has been my 2.... wait... 20 cents. Hope I didn't bore you...
The key to this is the new interpretation of HP. HP in 4e are not solely a matter of physical well-being. They also include concepts like a person's resolve to continue fighting. Under this new concept, inspiring oratory, the alleviation of pain, the binding of wounds, etc. can be used in healing powers.
The warlord in 4e is an example of this. They are martial leaders. This means their healing is neither divine or arcane in its source.
It is possible to have a 4e style leader, and by that I mean a healer, in modern and without FX.
The key to this is the new interpretation of HP. HP in 4e are not solely a matter of physical well-being. They also include concepts like a person's resolve to continue fighting....
This is a good interpretation.
It helps the mechanics fit with images of the real world. It helps with RP.
The Rules are not the World. They are a way to put the world in a framework. Roleplaying games are a collective dream, and the rules serve as a language which we can all imagine in.
This is a good interpretation.
It helps the mechanics fit with images of the real world. It helps with RP.
The Rules are not the World. They are a way to put the world in a framework. Roleplaying games are a collective dream, and the rules serve as a language which we can all imagine in.
Thanks, but I can't take credit for it. The PHB clearly states that's what HP are all about in 4e.
Then all you would have to do is pull togther what class features each one is allowed, and what powers they can pick.
Has anyone considered that morethan likly they wouldturn the roles into classes themselves? You know, the Striker Hero, the Leader Hero, the Defender Hereo, and the Controller Hero.
Then all you would have to do is pull togther what class features each one is allowed, and what powers they can pick.
It's possible they will, but they will likely expand on it a bit. 4e D&D has several different strikers, Ranged and Melee. Other subcategories include power source (like the arcane ranged striker, the warlock).
I think its becoming aparent that the D&D ROLES dont work in a non-FX game
There can be no Leaders, cause the FieldOfficer cant cast healing
There will be no controllers, cause who is going to take Wizard that gets no spells
Anybody that owns a gun would be a Ranger
The 'fix' for this is to tie technology in with class abilities. In the real world, anyone that can pull the pin from a grenade can use one, but in the 4E modern (perhaps) the Grenadier or Demolitions Professional is the only one who is 'allowed' to chuck thrown explosives.
4E does that sort of abstraction all the time.
There will be no controllers, cause who is going to take Wizard that gets no spells
Well, I suppose the trick would be to create a class called "Grenadier" of Role Controller. You take the Wizard Powers and you re-fluff them so they deal concussive damage for a stun grenade or slashing damage for a fragmentation grenade.
Make them 'at-will' powers. Yes, your Grenadier has unlimited small grenades. Perhaps he's like MacGuyver, able to make them out of household implements. Or perhaps he has unlimited grenades only as long as he carries a chemical toolkit from which to craft them.
In 4E (D&D) Wizards uses staves for magical bonuses (+1 on attack and damage with all spells) but in 4E (modern) the Grenadier uses a Chemical Toolkit (+1 on attack and damage with all attacks that use the 'explosive' keyword) to gain his bonuses. They are both 'implements' and function in the same way.
Just throwing you guys a bone. I started building a 4E Modern and had a bunch of ideas like this.
Here's the catch: Each class in D&D 4E has about 80 powers. You need a lot of time on your hands to actually do this fully. Particularly if you want about 10 classes which is what I was aiming at.
Perhaps aim low, and do only Levels 1-10 per class?
No F/X.
Bruiser
Role: Defender
Descrption: Big tough guy; like Tough Hero
Commander
Role: Leader
Descrption: Inspirational Charismatic type
Engineer / Demolitions
Role: Controller
Descrption: Smart hero, good at building stuff, good at taking it apart
Gunslinger
Role: Striker
Description: Fast, favors twin weapons and tumbling
Scout
Role: Striker
Description: Sneaky bastard, favors sniper weapons and backstabbing
Soldier
Role: Controller or Defender
Description: Tougher controller character with heavy assault weapons to 'autofire' areas; poor targeted attacks. You could design class with emphasis on tough or emphasis on burst-fire.
With F/X
Acolyte
Role: Controller or Striker perhaps
Description: Contemporary student of dark arts
Mutant (suitable for Post-Apocalypse) or Cyborg (suitable for sci-fi)
Role: Defender
Description: Crazy defensive abilities granted by mutations or technology
Priest
Role: Leader
Description: Contemporary religious figure
Psychic
Role: Controller or Striker perhaps
Description: Human who discovers he has telepathic or psychic powers
anyone that can pull the pin from a grenade can use one, but in the 4E modern (perhaps) the Grenadier or Demolitions Professional is the only one who is 'allowed' to chuck thrown explosives.
Not trying to attack you or your post,
but,
that is the epitome of what I dispise about various attempts to do a Modern4:
That makes no frickin logical resemblance of a passing nod to reality whatsoever.
Of course anyone can pull the pin.
Of course anyone can expell the grenade from their grasp.
Of course it will blow up with the exact same potential damage and radius regardless of who threw it.
The only user input is where the grenade lands once it leaves the hand.... it will come down somewhere (miss&scatter) and it will explode with a X'radius
Just what part of that are we suposed to believe wont happen if a Sniper threw the grenade, that only happens when a Grenadier throws it?
The pin cant get pulled by a Str14 Sniper but a Str10 Grenadier pulls it?
The grenade will stick to your hand and you cant shake it off when you try to throw it?
The grenade will grow sentience and determin who threw it and what class the thrower is, so the grenade can choose to detonate or not 5sec after the pin is pulled?
Suspension of Disbelief is one thing,
but to say grenades dont blow up unless you explain to the grenade what your class is
( or you have high Bluff and convince the grenade you are a class you are not)
is silly in a modern non-FX world.
This kind of thing can work ok in a fantasy & magic game
where a +4MagicSword can choose whether or not it will help you hit & hurt.
But in the modern game, we have explicitly mundane items and rigid set of rules presented by Physics.
It is one thing to have to suspend disbelief in a fantasy magic environment,
it is another to have to suspend physics in the non-FX modern world.
If I drop this rock, will it fall?
That depends what class the dropper is, the rock will choose to fall or not if you are high enough level to access Gravity, otherwias the rock will just float there in the Modern World
Princess is a Cha/3Personality5/Smart2 that doesnt carry a weapon.
What M4 role is that, and what M4 class
Lets just take one of my Partymembers and see how to convert them to Modern4e:
Princess is a Cha/3Personality5/Smart2 that doesnt carry a weapon.
What M4 role is that, and what M4 class
Under 4e rules, she is a mook, leader role. :P
our Leader is the gal that is always surrendering
;)"Al, stop bleeding already, I just had the place cleaned. Jimmy, JIMMY! Use a coaster under that beer, its teak from.... OMG is that thing dead?
Uh, do you have a plunger? Cause I was just in the bathroom... and...
Out! All you jerks get out! Out Out Out!"
Jimmy, I think you better leave her laptop where you found it
Not trying to attack you or your post,
but,
that is the epitome of what I dispise about various attempts to do a Modern4:
That makes no frickin logical resemblance of a passing nod to reality whatsoever.
Of course anyone can pull the pin.
Of course anyone can expell the grenade from their grasp.
Of course it will blow up with the exact same potential damage and radius regardless of who threw it.
The only user input is where the grenade lands once it leaves the hand.... it will come down somewhere (miss&scatter) and it will explode with a X'radius
Just what part of that are we suposed to believe wont happen if a Sniper threw the grenade, that only happens when a Grenadier throws it?
The pin cant get pulled by a Str14 Sniper but a Str10 Grenadier pulls it?
The grenade will stick to your hand and you cant shake it off when you try to throw it?
The grenade will grow sentience and determin who threw it and what class the thrower is, so the grenade can choose to detonate or not 5sec after the pin is pulled?
Suspension of Disbelief is one thing,
but to say grenades dont blow up unless you explain to the grenade what your class is
( or you have high Bluff and convince the grenade you are a class you are not)
is silly in a modern non-FX world.
This kind of thing can work ok in a fantasy & magic game
where a +4MagicSword can choose whether or not it will help you hit & hurt.
But in the modern game, we have explicitly mundane items and rigid set of rules presented by Physics.
It is one thing to have to suspend disbelief in a fantasy magic environment,
it is another to have to suspend physics in the non-FX modern world.
If I drop this rock, will it fall?
That depends what class the dropper is, the rock will choose to fall or not if you are high enough level to access Gravity, otherwias the rock will just float there in the Modern World
This is exactly why I don't think 4E is a good system for a modern game.
I just saw people were trying it and I thought I'd help out with some of the work that I did previously. I wish I had the foresight to realize how the abstract nature of 4E made suspension of disbelief difficult.
The problem is that I'd quite like to publish my own campaign setting at some point. My options currently are 4E or, uh, 4E.
I really like nWoD for Modern games, but their system isn't open. I really like GURPS but you can't publish third party material out there.
The greatest thing about wizards (and I praise them heartily for it) is the OGL and the SRD.
Unfortunately their new game is actually rubbish.
But I digress...
The reason that a Strength 14 Sniper cannot throw a grenade a but Strength 10 Grenadier can throw a grenade is because the sniper chooses not to. He prefers to use his Sniper Rifle, the only weapon with which he has special 'powers'.
I agree. 4E is a poor choice for a Modern game. It took me a lot of tinkering to realize that.
See, I agree that setting the game up in a way where only grenadiers can throw grenades would be a terrible way to write the game... but I don't agree that 4e is a poor choice for a Modern game.
4e already has rules for items, which anyone can throw, which work like grenades. That is what their alchemical items do. They are found in adventurers vault.
As for a technological based controller. In a cyber-punk game a hacker can fill this role. In a space opera a nano-bot technician can fill this role. In a basic modern game, honestly, a heavy weapons artillerist can fill this role. Give the character the hit points of a fighter, not a controller. Factor in his class abilities and number of skills granted to make up for their boost in hit points. Make them require fully automatic weapons in order to use their weapon powers. And then grant them a bunch of area of effect abilities (some of which can be sustained with a minor action until you need to reload your firearm), and boom: you have a Modern controller (if one very different from Fantasy variants).
Anyone can fire a gun on autofire. But just like in Modern not everyone can Burst fire, in a 4e Modern not everyone can use autofire as effectively as the Machine Gunner.
it didnt make me any better at Autofire with a rifle than the next guy (we still had A1's).
Guys that were good with M16 autofire didnt know jack about using the T&E for the 60
I agree. 4E is a poor choice for a Modern game. It took me a lot of tinkering to realize that.
I just saw people were trying it and I thought I'd help out with some of the work that I did previously. I wish I had the foresight to realize how the abstract nature of 4E made suspension of disbelief difficult.
The problem is that I'd quite like to publish my own campaign setting at some point. My options currently are 4E or, uh, 4E.
I really like nWoD for Modern games, but their system isn't open. I really like GURPS but you can't publish third party material out there.
The greatest thing about wizards (and I praise them heartily for it) is the OGL and the SRD.
Unfortunately their new game is actually rubbish.
But I digress...
The reason that a Strength 14 Sniper cannot throw a grenade a but Strength 10 Grenadier can throw a grenade is because the sniper chooses not to. He prefers to use his Sniper Rifle, the only weapon with which he has special 'powers'.
I'm not saying that 4E CAN'T work for modern... just that it would take more work than I want to invest to MAKE it work, and even then, it would strain MY PERSONAL suspension of dis-belief too much for me to enjoy the game.
I don't even particularly like 4E for Dungeons and Dragons, except that they've made it VERY easy for DM's to plan encounters with the XP budget.
I spent 2 1/2 years as the platoon 60gunner
it didnt make me any better at Autofire with a rifle than the next guy (we still had A1's).
Guys that were good with M16 autofire didnt know jack about using the T&E for the 60
And that makes a Machine Gunner "controller" class a bad idea why now?
Anyone can fire a gun on autofire. But just like in Modern not everyone can Burst fire, in a 4e Modern not everyone can use autofire as effectively as the Machine Gunner.
Snipers cant throw grenades and now only MachineGunners can not suk with autofire?
What is next, only Chefs can make PopNFresh biscuits?
Pens only write for Performer class?
Only Techies can have GoogleFu?
Snipers cant throw grenades and now only MachineGunners can not suk with autofire?
What is next, only Chefs can make PopNFresh biscuits?
Pens only write for Performer class?
Only Techies can have GoogleFu?
Depending on your point of view, that sort of is how it works. It's not so much a hard and fast physical rule that a sniper can't throw a grenade. It doesn't stick to his hand. It doesn't spontaneously turn dud. It's just that he should never be in a position to need one.
Look at it this way, a person is trained to use a sword. He's practiced with it for years and knows how to do all kinds of neat tricks with it. Would that man really prefer to use a gun in a combat situation?
That justification does reasonably well in a D&D setting where each person has that "one thing" they're good at, but I'll give you the point that it falls apart in a modern world where people do many different things.
but as folks here can attest
I am incapable of considering there never being a need for EXPLOSIVES
Like a Blowgun Sniper tossing a grenade in a window
and darting folks that run out.
Or using a grenade to break a grapple with a lower level guy.
Or even a Shapecharge HandGrenade Sniper taking out his target with a bullseye shapecharge handgrenade from a concealed position (Thrown McDagger)
Shapecharge 10d6 Ignore10Hardness/DR/Armor shouldnt change to 1d2 50%break Improvised
'Snipers dont use grenades' is just what they're expecting
Its easier to think outside the box after you blow up the box
Snipers cant throw grenades...
Sorry, that has already been refuted. Grenade like weapons already exist in 4e. They are stated out in Adventurers Vault. Anyone can throw them.
...now only MachineGunners can not suk with autofire?
Not "suk"? That is subjective. Anyone can autofire. But I see no reason why all classes should gain controller style autofire special weapon powers. The point of a class based system is that not all classes gain all abilities. Thematic abilities are grouped together under the umbrella of a class.
If you want to play a classless system, d20 is not for you.
Sorry, that has already been refuted. Grenade like weapons already exist in 4e. They are stated out in Adventurers Vault. Anyone can throw them.
Anyone can throw grenades?
Cause I would love to see some 1st level guys not forbidden to throw
2d6 FireOil Flask
4d6 Frag grenades / 10d6Shapecharge grenades
6d6 PlasmaGrenades / 15d6PlasBore grenades
6d8 GraviticGrenades / 15d8ImplosionPoint grenades
8d8 Disintegrenades / 20d8MassDisjointer genades (basic pl9 grenades)
.... all just 1st level equipment for mooks.... depending what year it is of course
PL4.5 + Grenades are Pull pin, throw.
PL4.5 + guns use a Point & Click intervace, from 22lr to 20FatMac
Classless systems are ok,
you can make your char combat or noncombat or any mix you want.
Modern is ok,
you can make your char combat or noncombat or any mix you want without having surrendering penalty feats.
if the character you portray in roleplaying doesnt do the gun thing, maybe there should be classes for that.... like the way Modern has noncombat classes that combat folks probably wouldnt want to take.
Firemen dont go the the Uzi Range alot, yet are action heros
So, when making a Modern4 we want to make something other than D&D4e
cause somebody already made that and we dont need to remake it the same.
The reason we have to make Modern4 is cause it will not be just a cut&paste of DD4
I've done my best to hold my tongue in the past, but this needs to be said. Your snarky comments that snipers can't get the pin out of a grenade, or that it wont explode if they do just because he's a sniper, devalues the logic of your argument and makes us less likely to read any of your arguments.
I have no problem with being proven wrong, or being shown that something is clunky or wont work. Hell, if I'm headed in the wrong direction, i'd prefer if someone would point out the right one. I do have a problem with sarcastic half-arguments that don't even make the point they attempted being courted as legitimate debate.
And this isn't the first time. We can even go back to the 4e D-Tap/Burst Fire discussion. You and I went round and round about Burst Fire and D-Tap in 4e, and you still contend that in 4e you could only do those once per encounter.
Let me recap the argument. Those things can be at-will powers granted by the weapon (among other solutions discussed). Like the powers granted by 4e magic items. They are not stuck in the once per encounter limbo your mind keeps apparently putting them in.
If this comes off as a bit harsh, I do sincerely apologize for any hurt feelings.
Anyone can throw grenades?
Cause I would love to see some 1st level guys not forbidden to throw
2d6 FireOil Flask
4d6 Frag grenades / 10d6Shapecharge grenades
6d6 PlasmaGrenades / 15d6PlasBore grenades
6d8 GraviticGrenades / 15d8ImplosionPoint grenades
8d8 Disintegrenades / 20d8MassDisjointer genades (basic pl9 grenades)
.... all just 1st level equipment for mooks.... depending what year it is of course
PL4.5 + Grenades are Pull pin, throw.
PL4.5 + guns use a Point & Click intervace, from 22lr to 20FatMac
Obviously these exact items don't exist in Adventurers Vault. It is still a fantasy based game, not a sci-fi game. However, the game does have grenade like weapons. These weapons do more damage based on the "level" of the item. Anyone can throw any such weapon regardless of the "level" of the item (though getting your hands on a higher level item pretty much requires DM fiat, as you would never be able to afford a higher level item at low level. Still, there are no rules which restrict the use of higher level items to higher level characters). Which means that a 1st level character can throw a 26th level item for massive damage (if the DM provides the character with a way to get their hands on a 26th level alchemical grenade). And there is no reason why higher technological ages could not produce more damaging variants. 4e D&D has already fulfilled your request
Classless systems are ok,
you can make your char combat or noncombat or any mix you want.
Modern is ok,
you can make your char combat or noncombat or any mix you want without having surrendering penalty feats.
if the character you portray in roleplaying doesnt do the gun thing, maybe there should be classes for that.... like the way Modern has noncombat classes that combat folks probably wouldnt want to take.
Firemen dont go the the Uzi Range alot, yet are action heros
So long as the game provides the potential for each class to be equally potent in combat, I have no problem with the game providing the option to give up combat capability in favor of non-combat capability. Like I said, I think ideally I would have the game grant attack powers/utility powers across a divide ala 4e D&D. Unlike 4e D&D, however, I would want rules that allow "non-combat characters" to give up combat attack powers in favor of extra utility powers. However, a blurb at the side of the page should warn players that they are potentially gimping their character in combat.
So, when making a Modern4 we want to make something other than D&D4e
cause somebody already made that and we dont need to remake it the same.
The reason we have to make Modern4 is cause it will not be just a cut&paste of DD4
No one wants a copy and paste of D&D 4e. Not even those of us who want a rule system largely based off the 4e mechanics.
He meant anyone, regardless of class, can use the grenade weapons of 4e; if they meet the level requirement.
I believe I already addressed this-
Not trying to attack you or your post,
but,
that is the epitome of what I dispise about various attempts to do a Modern4:
That makes no frickin logical resemblance of a passing nod to reality whatsoever.
Why do you have to put a level requirement on
the basic, entry level dumb grunt, PullPin&Throw Grenade of PL8?
What is the level requirement for a 1000mhz computer?
High enough level to afford a $20000 quadprocessor mainframe (1994 character)?
or high enough level to get a $300 laptop (2009 character)?
Why have a level requirement on comp MHZ,
when it obviously is irrelevant in scope of Tech Level.
Why have a level req for grenades by Damage Amount
when it is obviously level irrelevant in the future when pl9 8d8 grenades are a dime a dozen
Do you have $5?
PL8: Here's a dozen 8d8 Zortox grenades
PL4: Here's a dozen 2d6 Dynamite sticks
PL2: Here's a couple pints of FlameyOil
Medievil monks found Paper invaluable,
in PL5 we find paper to be without value,
what is the level requirements for owning Paper?
Guttenburg to Franklin had very very expensive 1page / hour printers,
I have a $29 8ppm printer
I must be 20th level to print like that
Why have a level req for grenades by Damage Amount
when it is obviously level irrelevant in the future when pl9 8d8 grenades are a dime a dozen
Do you have $5?
PL8: Here's a dozen 8d8 Zortox grenades
PL4: Here's a dozen 2d6 Dynamite sticks
PL2: Here's a couple pints of FlameyOil
Medievil monks found Paper invaluable,
in PL5 we find paper to be without value,
what is the level requirements for owning Paper?
Guttenburg to Franklin had very very expensive 1page / hour printers,
I have a $29 8ppm printer
I must be 20th level to print like that
If low lvl characters can afford military explosives, that's the definition of why you need a level requirement. And why are your characters using grenades anyway? Are they in the military? If not, do they even care they're breaking many laws and posing a public hazard just by possseing them.
Re: Printer argument.
See above rant about snarky comments that do not help your case.
The only "level requirement" in regards to what items a character can use are "can you afford that item" and "can you find that item." Any character can use any level item. Any character can throw any level alchemical grenade from the Adventurers Vault. However, higher level items are very expensive. DMs are unlikely to grant players enough gold to be able to afford higher level items. But, whether a DM does or does not is ultimately up to the DM. There is no rule that says that if a 1st level character gets their hands on a 30th level item, they can not use it. The only exception to this (that I can think of off hand) is with magical rings.
Get it yet? The "level" of a magic item is not a restriction. Its a suggested level at which that item would be ideally suited to a character. Its used to help the DM figure out what items can be granted to a player without overpowering the player, just like the suggested treasure parcels are used to help a DM figure out about what a player should be receiving as a treasure reward at any given level without overpowering that player.
WARNING: Although the killing radius of this fragmentation grenade is 16 feet (5 m) and the casualty-producing radius is 50 feet (15 m), fragmentation can disperse as far away as 755 feet (230 m).
PEO Ammo: M67
The grenade has an olive drab body with a single-yellow band at the top. Markings are in yellow.
This is a training standard item used in both training and combat.
Type Classification Date: 1971. Unit cost: $27.64 (Fiscal Year 2005).
What moron will assign a minimum level other than 1st
to buy a pl5 $28 pullpin&throw ball of 4d6 death?
its $28 each, not some 3rd level $4000 item
and in PL8, it will still be $30 but do 8d8
cause its just a hand grenade
Why must you guys try to tell folks that can buy $200 & $400 items
that they cant afford a $28 item?
Your fanatsy rules fall to pieces in the modern world.
Illegal terms might apply:
Cocaine & Marjuana are illegal, so therefor nobody under 5th level can possibly spend $10 for a $10 bag of weed.... ooops, I guess HighSchool kids are all 5th level these days.
But they certainly wont be spending $25 on some illegal coke or illegal grenade,
cause it it illegal?
cause they are not 5th level to buy the illegal cocaine / illegal weed / illegal grenade?
Kids cant get grenades
just like kids cant get guns to bring to schools,
which means all them school metal detectors are just ornamental?
Get your fanatsy mindset into reality mode.
Grenades are $28,7.62 SKS are <$100, shoes are >$100
modern modern modern
not fantasyland
You just dont get it, do ya
No, it is you who "just does not get it." As usual, you have proven to be unable to listen, unable to formulate logical arguments, unable to formulate an honest argument. You move from claiming that items have level restrictions to them, and it is unreasonable that only higher level characters CAN use an item, to arguing that the gold pricing system of D&D 4e doesn't work in a Modern world. Really, you don't say, a gold coin system doesn't work in a Modern world!? No **** sherlock. Who said it would? All we said is that the basic mechanics for grenade like items already exist, and there is no restriction as to what "level" grenade a character can throw.
Now lets go to the next line you have casually ignored.
No one wants a copy and paste of D&D 4e. Not even those of us who want a rule system largely based off the 4e mechanics.
In other words, nobody is saying that the gold coin system should be carried over into the modern world.
In the modern world, if a grenade costs 28 dollars, that is what it will cost in game. The item might still be listed as a higher level item, but this listing just lets the DM know approximately what level power the use of that item is equal to. Whether the DM makes the grenade available to the player before that level or not is ultimately up to the DM, just like it was in the existing d20 Modern. Likewise, there will probably need to be some sort of mechanic that informs a DM how much he must "level up" (or equip) NPCs to make up for PCs in the modern world using higher level equipment earlier in the game.
But, once again, the point is that these restrictions that you are claiming the 4e game contains, these restrictions which would make the game work poorly as a Modern game, DO NOT EXIST. When you claim they do, you are lying.
Why are you for having rules we wont use?
Why have some insane char level for a simple 4d6/8d8/10d8 basic grenade that noob gunts get?
just what was yout Grenadier class going to be doing at first level
if he aint 'supposed to' get grenades till (what level will you let PL8 guys get the basic starter 8d8 grenade?) ?
Why say cocaine is a 8th level peice of equipment if any sophmore can score it?
Just what do you tell guys that have $1200 and want to buy a $28 toy.
You just created Capitalism:
When I reach 5th level, I will buy $28 grenades and sell them to 1st level guys for $100
... $110 for a grenade with a bag of weed
so,
why is nobody doing that now?
Oh, I mean outside of reality where kids/bangers illegally buy guns they cant cant till they are older.
You need to first get a grip on the modern world before you make up game rules for Modern,
stick to Fantasy dude
Why are you for having rules we wont use?
Why have some insane char level for a simple 4d6/8d8/10d8 basic grenade that noob gunts get?
The player does not use the rule, the DM does. The rule helps the DM figure out what sort of equipment he wants to allow his players to be able to have access to, and when he will have to beef up his encounters to make up for a plethora of higher level items possessed by the players.
And like I said, in the end, this rule will need some amount of translation in a Modern system. Having an actual "level" on equipment is not really important. What is important is that the "level" on equipment can in some way be used to calculate how much NPCs must be beefed up (either via higher levels, or similar equipment).
is misleading, when one considers that a grenade or two aint really High Level Items when low level mooks, low level PCs, and low level soccermoms and low level etc can get them.
You are justifying the restriction because we can have a list of restricted items with it listed.
OR we can accept that a $28 hurter aint a high level item
since any slob with $28 and means to overcome the illegality can get one, the same way any slob with $10 can get a $10 bag of fed law restricted drugs
$25 bag of weed is not a high level item, $28 grenade is not High Level item, $100 Illegal AK47 is not a high level item, 9mm in school is not a high level item
You are right. Using a level for the item, in a d20 Modern game, would be misleading.
Which is why I said:
And like I said, in the end, this rule will need some amount of translation in a Modern system. Having an actual "level" on equipment is not really important. What is important is that the "level" on equipment can in some way be used to calculate how much NPCs must be beefed up (either via higher levels, or similar equipment).
The "level" doesn't even need to be listed as a "level." It can instead be listed as an experience penalty to encounters, for example. Since the item makes encounters a good deal easier to beat, one gains "less experience" during any encounter in which the item is used. One just doesn't need to try as hard, and thus doesn't learn as much. Its not necessarily the best way to translate the mechanic, but its an idea of what I mean by "the mechanic will need some translation."
but
PC cant buy items of higher level,
they can just loot them off of equal level encounters
(paradox warning: where did the 1st level guys we killed to get grenades, get them from if they were 1st level and couldnt buy them either?)
LAME!
by putting that level restrictor
(yes, when you cant buy them cause of your level, it IS a restriction)
you install a whole mess of "That just aint right" for our brains to get hurt tryin to figure
If you claim a 4d6 grenade is too high level for a newb
what level do you have to be to have a ww2 surplus SMLE rifle (2d10 ATWILL) ?
Now a basic surplus $75 rifle is a high level item?
What does that do to the BAR Auto30-06 or the M14?
Epic to get one?
Here is an idea:
When you see a first level rookie modern infantry
with a FullAuto 2d8 rifle, 4 4d6grenades, and NIJ-III bodyarmor
why would you act like you didnt see that coming?
And when your great great grandkids see a basic newb PL8 grunt
with a TwinAutoPPc 4d10 rifle, 4 8d8 grenades, and Hard15 StormySuits
why would they act like they didnt see that coming? Rookie in bottom tier PL8 gear.
They would engage with their own rookie-rifle 3d10 Refractorgun they got at a pawnshop for 75 creds (came with a bag of weed)
[rant]
This isn't an issue of realism. It's an issue of fun. This is a game, which means the point of it is to enjoy ones self. This often means giving up a bit of realism.
You want to play "real world" d20 Modern, go ahead remove level restrictions. I'll bet you never make it past level 1. That's how it works in the real world. What we're trying to do here is to make a game that allows players to have the best possible time, and that doesn't mean being killed with a .50 caliber sniper round when walking down the street, at least not to me.[/rant]
and yet we can make it past level 1
(even with noncombat classed chars in the party)
without insanely inflated HP
nor "non-magical" means for all classes to just will themselves UnShot by 25% of our HP a half dozen times a day
and with Death being just -10 instead of -0.5x InsaneHP # with double chance stabilizing
d20Modern dont have those level restrictions
and yet we can make it past level 1
(even with noncombat classed chars in the party)
True, but it seems you are hell-bent on allowing a 1st level player to have access to a full arsenal (yes, I know it's what they carry in real life, but it's not good game balance). If it's the principle of arbitrary level restrictions you don't like, I can understand that. I don't think it's that great either. Unfortunately, we're stuck with it unless we can find a better way to balance insane power-mongering characters with average ones. The GM doesn't have to use it if he doesn't want to but there needs to be some balancing measure on equipment to keep things even.
without insanely inflated HP
nor "non-magical" means for all classes to just will themselves UnShot by 25% of our HP a half dozen times a day
and with Death being just -10 instead of -0.5x InsaneHP # with double chance stabilizing
By this point I think we're all just arguing for the sake of argument. Mind you I love a good argument but the point of "insanely inflated HP" has been rather thoroughly debunked, at least from my perspective.
It really just comes down to the fact that in a perfect gaming group everyone could do whatever they want, but there have to be restrictions the GM can level if some annoying player insists on buying one of these at level 1:
and it is the 1st level guys that get the insanely inflated HP
The arguing should dry up,
I put CyberDave on Mute so we can get back to Classmakin Good Times
I like the "role/power" concept of 4.0. Assuming a player can use any weapon, just with varying degrees of skill, are you ok with a player having "powers" that enhance his ability with a certain weapon (or set of weapons).
If that works for you, we just have to come up with some roles that fit in a Modern world. I think someone posted a set a while back that could work.
a lovely theory
but
PC cant buy items of higher level
Another lie. There is no rule anywhere that states that PCs cant buy items of a higher level in 4e. You can buy what you can afford. We have all agreed that items in d20 Modern should have the same price as they do in real life.
What moron will assign a minimum level other than 1st to buy a pl5 $28 pullpin&throw ball of 4d6 death?
@Stabbist.
Grenades have a purchase DC of 18 (15, +3 for the restriction). That means they cost $1,200 each. $500 each if you are acquiring them illegally. You obviously aren't playing d20 Modern, and your arguments now are completely meaningless to me. Good luck with whatever game you are playing that you are trying to pass off as D20 Modern. I only hope no one is fooled by your act.
@Stabbist.
Grenades have a purchase DC of 18 (15, +3 for the restriction). That means they cost $1,200 each. $500 each if you are acquiring them illegally. You obviously aren't playing d20 Modern, and your arguments now are completely meaningless to me. Good luck with whatever game you are playing that you are trying to pass off as D20 Modern. I only hope no one is fooled by your act.
Ooooh, neat, another lie he made! This one I didn't catch him in...
Ooooh, neat, another lie he made! This one I didn't catch him in...
It's ok Cyber-Dave, no anti-BS forcefield is 100% foolproof. Which is why a fool got through it.
Frag PDC15 (+3mil)
Fragmentation Grenade
The most common military grenade, this is a small explosive device that sprays shrapnel in all directions when it explodes.
The purchase DC given is for a box of 6 grenades.
what game are you playing with grenades costing $500 each before the Mil spike?
Lie?
I said m67 Frags cost $28, they did.
You want to talk about fictional numbers in game, ok.... get them right first so you dont spout off about $1200 each grenades
If a grenade really costs $28
why would you say they cost 500 in game
in the game where gun prices are not too too far off
what game are you playing with grenades costing $500 each before the Mil spike?
Of course, the fact that they are only sold in boxes of 6, and the box costs more than a low level character is supposed to be able to afford, that means absolutely nothing! No, really...
What he fails to mention is that you still need to shell out $500-$1200 to get them. It doesn't matter that they come 6 to a box. You have to buy the whole freaking box to get any of them, so it's a moot point.
Oh, by the way. Do you know what you get for that $700 savings?
1) You get the joy of dealing with criminal low-lifes that may try to blow your head off to keep your cash, or may stiff you with a substandard product that could fail when you need it most.
and
2) You get the joy of being a criminal, of having to always wonder if the next guy you buy grenades from is being tracked by federal agents as a terrorist/arms dealer.
What he fails to mention is that you still need to shell out $500-$1200 to get them. It doesn't matter that they come 6 to a box. You have to buy the whole freaking box to get any of them, so it's a moot point
Hardly moot
Have you guys actually played any Modern?
Wealth Bonus
To determine a character’s starting Wealth bonus, roll 2d4 and add the wealth bonus for the character’s starting occupation, plus (if appropriate) the bonus from the Windfall feat, plus 1 if the character has ranks in Profession.
When it is said that a 1st level guy cant buy a box of 6 grenades that cost PDC15 +3mil
and given that the lowest rolled 1st Level Wealth would be Wealth+2
then the poorest noob would need to roll 16 or higher on the d20 purchase of the 6grenade box,
and a 1st with Profession ranks and max rolled Wealth would need to roll 9 or better to buy them....
I hardly consider needing a 9 or more on a d20 roll to be unattainably moot.
I also dont consider needing 16 or more on a d20 to be unattainably moot.
Please stop trying to argue
and get back to making classes for Modern4 gaming
that dont require us to suspend capitalism or physics
Given m67Frag grenades cost $28 each in 2005,
what should they cost in game?
$30?
Maybe $35 accounting for gas prices?
GlobalSec was a decent place to get these kinds of numbers, I got the Nov05 price from Gary's. If you dont like Gary's try the Marines at http://www.marcorsyscom.usmc.mil/AM/Ammunition/ref/pdf/PRESBUD06/Grenades(1468).pdf pg5 3rd line item is the $27.15/ea m67 for a 2005 Marines procurement
(When you argue against DoD info from a .mil site, you lose)
So, obviously we need to correct the cost of Frags in Modern4 to be closer to $200 per6,
just as we need to fix the damage die for 2d12 MagRifle (.375+) above 2d10 (30-06) and below 2d20(50BMG).
so yopu are saying the low low price per is moot
considering how easy it is for 1st level guys to buy the whole box of grenades
even though that obtainable 6grenade box PDC15 +3 is way way over inflated, where gun prices mostly are not
which brings up back to my point that
grenades (and even 6Grenades) are not high level items because 1st level guys can afford them
For example, lets say you can purchase high level grenades at level 1. However, because they are a level 10 item (pulled the number out of thin air) you loose a lot of exp for using said item at level one. But, if you are level 10+, you don't loose any exp for using a grenade (or at least loose a lot less, as you still essentially get one extra power due to the fact that you possess a grenade).
It would be nice is the size of the penalty was based on the level of the item in relation to the level of the character.
For example, lets say you can purchase high level grenades at level 1. However, because they are a level 10 item (pulled the number out of thin air) you loose a lot of exp for using said item at level one. But, if you are level 10+, you don't loose any exp for using a grenade (or at least loose less, as you still essentially get one extra power due to the fact that you possess a grenade).
Not to sound creepy or anything, but you need to tell me where you live so that I can shake your hand.
Level 10 characters are expected to be carrying level 10 items. They get no penalty for carrying such items. Conversely, they get no bonus for NOT carrying such items; as level 10 characters, they should be smart enough to gather such equipment and avoid being stripped of it.
executive sumamry: For XP-earning purposes, you get treated as the higher of your character level or the highest level equipment you were carrying and coudl have used in that encounter.
Not to sound creepy or anything, but you need to tell me where you live so that I can shake your hand.
Toronto Ontario, in Canada. ;) :P :D
Glad you like the suggestion. I think it would probably be the best way to make "high level" items affordable for low level characters, making it realistic that NPC low level characters would still choose to use these items, while simultaneously not making such items so prevalent that they overpower PCs.
executive sumamry: For XP-earning purposes, you get treated as the higher of your character level or the highest level equipment you were carrying and coudl have used in that encounter.
I don't think it should be based on what you "could have used," only what you did. You shouldn't get an XP penalty because you have a grenade on you, only if you use a grenade to win an encounter.
Also, the XP purposes thing wouldn't work. I like the premise. The problem is that the 4e system did away with "encounter levels" and "ratio tables" used to figure out XP. Now monsters add a flat rate of XP based on their level.
A formula like "you loose a % of your experience equal to 1 - x/y for using a higher level item then your character, where x = your level, and y = the items level, might work.
This might also be too drastic, however. 1 - x/y would mean that if someone did use something like a 10th level item at 1st level, they would loose 90% of the experience of that encounter...
I don't think it should be based on what you "could have used," only what you did. You shouldn't get an XP penalty because you have a grenade on you, only if you use a grenade to win an encounter.
In a sense, having it in your possession and available to use does directly affect your actions. Sometimes, knowing you have that extra reserve to pull out in case you need it is what makes the difference between pressing the battle and withdrawing because you don't have the resources to survive another series of bad rolls.
If that level 10 item is in your house then it wasn't "available, of course. But in your pocket ready to be used just in case? That's available.
Also, the XP purposes thing wouldn't work. I like the premise. The problem is that the 4e system did away with "encounter levels" and "ratio tables" used to figure out XP. Now monsters add a flat rate of XP based on their level.
That assumes the new game would go with the 4e idea of dropping that table. I think that table (or its cousin) may be the simplest way to do things.
A formula like "you loose a % of your experience equal to 1 - x/y for using a higher level item then your character, where x = your level, and y = the items level, might work.
This might also be too drastic, however. 1 - x/y would mean that if someone did use something like a 10th level item at 1st level, they would loose 90% of the experience of that encounter...
I'm cool with loosing that much XP if you use a big, out-of-challenge-appropriate-level gun in the fight.
After all, we are talking about punishing 1st level guys with equipemnt above their level,
such as parcelling 8-10 encounters per level (1st) that yeild equip 1-4 levels above current over the 8 parcells....
Seems I saw an example of a 1st level party getting One 2nd- One 5th level item while adventuring as 1st level guys.
So, whynot see how well this
Punnish 1st's with 5th level quip
theory flies with all the 4e D&D players
and then see how well it flies here
In a sense, having it in your possession and available to use does directly affect your actions. Sometimes, knowing you have that extra reserve to pull out in case you need it is what makes the difference between pressing the battle and withdrawing because you don't have the resources to survive another series of bad rolls.
If that level 10 item is in your house then it wasn't "available, of course. But in your pocket ready to be used just in case? That's available.
My problem with that is that it punishes lower level characters for even carrying something like a grenade. I mean, I guess they could make lower and higher level grenades (ala the multi-level alchemical grenades in Adventurers Vault)... but something about punishing a character for even carrying an item just does not seem fair to me. There has to be some sort of happy medium... maybe the penalty to EXP for just having the item on you should be only a fraction of the penalty to EXP if you use the item?
That assumes the new game would go with the 4e idea of dropping that table. I think that table (or its cousin) may be the simplest way to do things.
That table was never simple. :P
The flat EXP bonus and encounter design system of 4e is one of the things that 4e DMs love most (or so it has seemed to me, in my experience). It makes encounters much easier to design and manage (in terms of risk-reward). I just think that not continuing to use the 4e encounter design mechanics would be making a step backwards. The easiest thing, I think, would be to add new item rules in relation to using higher level items as a lower level character, not to totally do away with the innovations in encounter design that 4e made. But I could be wrong.
I'm cool with loosing that much XP if you use a big, out-of-challenge-appropriate-level gun in the fight.
I guess it really depends on how powerful the "10th level items" are. The 11th level alchemical grenades in D&D (closest to 10th level) are really not worth losing 90% of your exp. They only have a +14 to attack and only do 3d6 fire damage.
But, if the items were powered up, I could see it working ok.
Anyways, something along these lines should work well. The exact numbers used will need fiddling with.
Also, we need to decide if we like the "flat bonus to attack" granted by alchemical items in 4e, or if grenades should still have a bonus to attack based on the characters attack bonus and not the items attack bonus. I'm sort of on the fence about that.
As a *very* rough guide, I am imagining something like items that are 1-4 levels above teh character do not impose any XP penalty, but beyond that, there is a sliding scale. Exact numbers would have to depend on how powerful the different level items are, of course.
Yea, sounds about right. That is what I would like too.
As a *very* rough guide, I am imagining something like items that are 1-4 levels above teh character do not impose any XP penalty, but beyond that, there is a sliding scale. Exact numbers would have to depend on how powerful the different level items are, of course.
great
and since 6grenades are very much affordable equipment (even with +3Mil) for 1st level guys,
we shouldnt expect 1st's to not have equipment they can very much afford....
so there should be no reason to say six $28 grenades are high level equipment 1sts should get punished for having
much like punishing a 1st for having a Glock pistol (PDC18) or SawedShotty,
that is just wrong cause Mil+3 and Illegal+4 does not make it a high level equipment
If the problem is with the whole concept of Mil+3 availibility, then say that
And I see no reason why equipment that is necessarily affordable at 1st level should not impose an experience penalty. If the equipment makes it incredibly easy for a character to overcome a challenge, then the challenge grants less experience. That is very logical, even if the equipment is priced as an available item at 1st level.
If the grenade is designed in a way that it is not overpowered at 1st level, then no experience penalty is required.
The more realistic you make the grenade, the more chance an experience penalty will be required to offset its benefits.
A realistic grenade would make mincemeat of any likely opponents a 1st level party should be facing, and its level assigned accordingly. Probably 4th or 5th, on a par with a low-power fireball spell.
would you say a 1st level guy with a surplus ww2 2d10 Garand military rifle (cheap)
would be full xp against 1st MachetteMan or 1st KungFuJoe?
Or again is it the guy that spends $200 on a weapon is more killy than a guy with a $20 Machette.... do we say the $200 2d10 rifle is 'high level' like a grenade?
What happens with guns getting better:
even with the d20Future RAW gimp in place,
future rifles are doing 3d10 and heavypistols 2d12
Would we say the basis hunting rifle is a high level item?
Imagine what they would do without the RAW gimp
Really, making sure the 1st level goons don't have grenades in Modern is no different from making sure you don't get hill gianst in the 1st level of a dungeon. It's about giving what the party can reasonably handle.
And the other side of the coin is creating a mechanic that only gives the party what they need to handle their enemies, and reducing the benefit (XP) of the encounter if they bring so many fireworks that it's not of any value as a learning experience.
ok, in a more direct approach
the only RAW pl8 rifle does 3d10
what level PL8 shooty character can actually get a gun, if 3d10 makes the pl8 gun HighLevel Item?
Wont we at some point have to say
X level Items no longer do just Y damage, at this PL they do Z damage
cause any pl8 street urchin punk will have the pl8 3d10 gun
if they have any rifle at all
put into PL5 terms,
we dont see liquor stores gettink knocked over by guys with Crossbows or Muskets because SmokelessFirearm is too high level for teen punk robbers
Moreover, since the characters will have powers that increase damage, firearms will still be lethal to the other bad guys, maintaining cinematic realism.
Another thing to consider is to simply disallow grenades to be used in conjunction with powers. As backstabbist said, there is little more to it than pull, throw, duck, and I can't imagine an enhanced or better way to do it. Alternatively, the damage could always be reduced to one or two d6, since many characters would now only have 1 HP.
but it allows the characters to display what we see in action movies with the character getting shot 20-40 times and being able to limp away.
but we dont see 1st level guys doing that in movies.
That is something we expect Ms.MurderSheWrote to be able to do as a 8th level Smart5/Cha3. When the odds are leaning toward 2d6 mook pistols, even the 8d6 WriterSnoop can take a few hits in stride (or, in running away)
of course, as Razoreface said regarding survivability- "Try getting shot less"
Dont 4e let the GM assign dink Minion-grade enemys if the GM chooses to?
Lets get back to Page2 (~#35 give or take) where we were making progress:
Role: Thug
Thug Class- Melee upto 7[w]
Goon Class- Melee & Ranged upto 4[w]
Gunman Class- Ranged upto 7[w]
OR
just Goon Class with tree'd Melee and Ranged powers upto 7 (like picking a progression)
Role: Expert
BlueCollar Class- trades & skill activity encounter powers
WhiteCollar Class- techtrade & knowlege activity encounter powers
BlackOps Class- nobody knows for sure, but they dont do insane Sneak damage
Role: Face
Swashbuckly, Aristocraty, Pesronality classes for Diplomacy, Negotiation, Congames, workin the mojo
Role: FX
Wizoclerical classes for putting the Poof on folks
I suspect that Modern 4Es biggest challenge is equipment, but there you have it. With a handful of grenades, everyone becomes a controller, right.
Anyhoo... I would love to see a complete 4E modern system, if nothing else it would give me a golden opportunity to cannibalize from it and/or pick it apart.
you are right,
coming to grips with the powerful equipment of PL5 - PL8 will have to be understood before too much detail work can be done with the classes.
You mention "Controller"
any guy with a rifle and "I cover the alley with a Readied Action" is exerting "control"
Do you really need a fancy tital to pop a CS Teargas grenade and mention to folks that is is a cloud of "Arrrgh It Burns OhGod My Eyes", you just made that area off limits
...
actually, that would work out pretty cool:
"I'm not a fancy Controller, but this is teargas and you need to stay back"
Well, if your not a controllers I dont care what you say... I'm going thru your so called 'teargas' and there isnt anything you can AAAARRGH My Eyes OMG I cant Breath I'm Drowning In Snot And the Snot Burns Too..
"Man do I love this job"
Yeah sorry folks, didn't mean to derail it there.
I suspect that Modern 4Es biggest challenge is equipment, but there you have it. With a handful of grenades, everyone becomes a controller, right.
Anyhoo... I would love to see a complete 4E modern system, if nothing else it would give me a golden opportunity to cannibalize from it and/or pick it apart.
It should hardly be surprising that 4e will have to contend with modern-day and futuristic equipment being broken. It clearly is a problem in the extant Modern game. Equipment of PL 5-8 has been mentioned repeatedly by some posters, and I've heard many people say that gear from d20 future is broken. I don't have the book right in front of me, but I think that covers PL's 6+.
like if they do the roles maybe strong, tough, fast, smart, dedicated will be the roles and other sorts of classes would be a part of thos roles, gunslinger for fast and investigator for dedicated and what not.
p.s im not a fan of future so i cant comment on that, i like my modern well modern realistic settings.
Covering Fire
Attack 1
At-Will*Martial, Weapon
Standard Action
Ranged: 10
Target: One creature
Attack: Dexterity vs AC
Hit: 1x Weapon Damage, plus the target is marked.
Special: Select one marked target at the beginning of your turn. Until the beginning of your next turn, the next ranged attack that target makes at anyone other than you provokes a ranged basic attack from you.
Of course, the roles presented in 4e relate strictly to combat. Under the current 4e philosophy, every character can participate in skill challenges and should also be able to participate in combat (whether they do or not is a matter of personal taste and character background).
Not intending to stir things up, just curious. Perhaps 4EModern classes, like D20Modern classes before them, need to be different from (and more open than) their D&D counterparts?
Is the "Combat Roles" system of 4E something you want in the system, or something you're using because 4E has it?
Again, asking out of curiosity as well as to improve any input I can post here.
Edit: incase anyone wonders where this question came from, it's kinda stacking onto Backstabbist's reply.
Small question: do the "combat roles" of 4E have a place in the Modern world?
They conceiveably could.
Looking at modern cinematic fiction, there are a few combat archetypes that do seem to fit the bill as far as 4e roles are concerned.
1) The "I'll hold em off" guy. This is the character that keeps the enemies busy attacking him so his allies can fall back or get into better positions. This person fits the defender role.
2) The "I'm taking the shot" guy. This is the character that tries to keep a safe distance (or position) so they can deliver large amounts of damage to a target of their choice. This person fits the striker role.
3) The "I've got an idea" guy. This is the person who figures out how to combine and optimize the best abilities of the team. If we use the martial healing of the warlord (which is non-FX because it is martial and thus non-magical), these guys fit the leader role.
4) The "shoot the glass" guy. This is the character who alters the environment or changes the landscape to harm or hinder (or both) their foes. These characters often employ smoke, gasses, caltrops or explosives. This fits the controller role.
Not intending to stir things up, just curious. Perhaps 4EModern classes, like D20Modern classes before them, need to be different from (and more open than) their D&D counterparts?
Is the "Combat Roles" system of 4E something you want in the system, or something you're using because 4E has it?
No need to preface your statement. It is valid. I do not know if the 4e roles will work the best for 4e modern. I am running with them because they are the only current concept of generalized combat roles in the 4e system (though the 4e mechanics do need a few more utility and encounter powers for out of combat use). If new roles can be adapted that allow every role to have something valid to do in combat and out of it; I have no problem going with that system instead.
I dont see a problem with having Roles
but defining the core existance of a character first by what they do in combat
doesnt sound very modern world. Hackers, Mechanics, Investigators, RoadCrewFlagmen... why is it we first have to determine their style of fighting before we can say anything about them.
D&D Defenders = melee only meatdheilds
Modern Defenders.... how many tens of thousands of Zulu Attackers did the couple hundred Riflemen kill?
Modern experts have important roles in the modern world, and many modern 'characters' dont get into fights. Perhaps in a modern miniatures wargame we would hear that there shouldnt be ITguy or Scientist characters.... but in a Modern4 RPG those are perfectly valid Rs for folks to P in the G.
4eFighter gives up Ranged ability to be really good at Melee
Why cant Modern4 Engineer give up goon Ranged AND Melee ability to be really good at engineering..... or conversly, why does the Engineer have to give up being a really good engineer to be a decent Goon-Engineer, or Goon-Doctor, Goon-Scientist
Is there a reason for Modern4 to have "Combat Roles" instead of "Party Roles"?
Party roles are defined by rp and skills choices. If you want to be the IT guy, you only have to be trained in the appropriate skill. If you want to be the face of the group, Diplomacy (and likely Bluff too) are great skill choices.
Combat roles, by comparison, are there to make sure that each character is capable of filling a role in combat. This doesn't mean the character has to fulfill that role if they don't want to. If the party's defender is their "face man" character who doesn't carry a gun and doesn't want to fight, then he doesn't have to. He can shout encouragements, shriek like a child and run away, or whatever else he can think of to do.
Why cant Modern4 Engineer give up goon Ranged AND Melee ability to be really good at engineering..... or conversly, why does the Engineer have to give up being a really good engineer to be a decent Goon-Engineer, or Goon-Doctor, Goon-Scientist
Is the "Combat Roles" system of 4E something you want in the system, or something you're using because 4E has it?
Honestly, I think its something I want.
There is this mysticism that has grown up around these boards that the d20 Modern game has non-combat classes. The truth is, in my opinion, it really doesn't. Out of the smart heroes 5 talents, 3 are combat related. Out of the Dedicated heroes 10 talents, 8 are beneficial during combat. Out of the Charismatic heroes 9 talents, 7 are designed for combat. All characters in d20 Modern were always supposed to be able to contribute to combat. Some are just better at the damage dealing, and others better are buffing the rest of the group, healing the group up, or applying effects that control the battlefield (by applying effects to enemies, and thus controlling their actions). All a combat role does is explicitly state what every character's role is supposed to be in combat. And the truth is, while its not explicitly stated in d20 Modern (3e version), those roles do still exist.
So yes, combat roles is something I want.
I think that the classes should be broken up by roles as follows:
Tough Hero
Role: Defender
Strong Hero
Role: Melee Striker
Fast Hero
Role: Ranged Striker
Smart Hero
Role: Controller
Dedicated Hero
Role: Leader
Charismatic Hero
Role: Leader
(Aside: WFRP has a realistic idea of how lethal combat is. Even the combat-optimised guys there die with alarming ease there. The game encourages quite realistic interactions in encounters, where combat is rarely the first choice. Just like in real life, and just liek a lot of the kind of stories that Modern should be able to portray).
If all your games are kick the door kill the bad guy get his gear, then yes, every character needs combat options. And D&D does that. But Modern needs to have a broader scope than that.
This isn't to say the "non-combat" classes shouldn't be able to contribute, far from it. But having every character equally handy with a sword or whatever with base attack rolls, as is the case in 4e D&D, just isn't in the spirit of Modern.
contribute the same amount to a 250m firefight?
Cause they are both specialized in something else, and are not very good at shooting folks?
Sure, we can say in a different case the different classes shine,
like if there was a zombie coming at us cause the truck stalled next to a graveyard,
then yeah
the Modern4 Mechanic would really be saving the party.... maybe even before the zombie gets close to the 4eFighter.... making the Fighter still worthless... but there is probably some situation where the Fighter will get to shine
It should hardly be surprising that 4e will have to contend with modern-day and futuristic equipment being broken. It clearly is a problem in the extant Modern game. Equipment of PL 5-8 has been mentioned repeatedly by some posters, and I've heard many people say that gear from d20 future is broken. I don't have the book right in front of me, but I think that covers PL's 6+.
yes, d20Future it is broken
They have a logic breaking gimp on guns as PL progress:
1dX(musket) - 2d10Rifle - 3d8Rifle - 3d10Rifle - 3d10Rifle - 3d10Rifle
why did tech improving all of a sudden mean staying the same?
Why does a Disintegrator hit to your ARMOR not disintegrate the armor?
(oh, it will disintegrate the armor, the armor waits till the wearer dies then armor allows itself to be disintegrated by a DisintegratorGun )
The new & improved objects replacing old standard objects
is the entire core concept of Progress Levels.
Smokeless guns actually are 2x- 10x more killy than muskets, but we dont start 1st level modern chars with Muskets in 2009NYC or even 1980's LA.
Is it broken to allow 1st level Modern chars
to drive from LA to SanJose in just 4 hrs,
skipping over the 10days worth of encounters D&D 1st lvl party get doing that on foot?
CHEATERS!!!
Clearly the Modern newbs are using tech to cheat the travel system,
very much an unfair advantage over D&D newbs.
A car must become a high level item,
and clearly a PL8 GravPinto or GravKia that can fly there in 10mins must be an epic item (that burger flippers drive)
If a game system requires 1st level guys to start with Muskets in 2009 Detroit,
that after many many gunfights they can eventually find a Cap&Ball, and in epic levels get a Glock
.... yes, there is indeed something seriously broken
I'm with backstabbist here. I genuinely don't get why a character *must* have potential in a fight.
Partly, because this has always been the premise of d20 system games (under WotC management). Partly, because if all characters have potential both in and out of combat, then no matter what is going on, all characters have a meaningful way to contribute to the story. Nobody has to sit back and not play for periods of time. Its not "play A plays for 15-30 minutes while player B yawns. Then players B plays for 15-30 minutes while player A yawns." That is just not fun.
This isn't to say the "non-combat" classes shouldn't be able to contribute, far from it. But having every character equally handy with a sword or whatever with base attack rolls, as is the case in 4e D&D, just isn't in the spirit of Modern.
Except, that is not how 4e works. All characters are not equally handy with a sword. And nobody is saying that all d20 Modern characters should be handy with a gun. Having attack powers that are combat oriented doesn't mean those attack powers have to be about being good at using a weapon.
In my ideal world, the Tough Hero would get both melee and heavy thrown weapon related powers. Neither of these powers would be particularly strong (in comparison to the Strong/Fast hero powers) in terms of damage or debilitating effects placed on the enemy. However, a lot of these powers would allow the Tough Hero to spend a healing surge after making the attack, or gain damage reduction as a secondary buff benefit, or regeneration, or that sort of thing. Also, a lot of his powers would allow him to make interrupt and/or reaction based attacks against enemies who attack the Tough Heroes friends. His melee/thrown based powers would be based off STR, but Con would be the primary ability off which all of his class abilities and secondary healing/buff based powers will be based off of.
The Strong Hero would get melee and heavy thrown weapon related powers. These powers would be all about high damage and dealing effects against the Strong Hero's enemies. His powers would pretty much all work of Strength. A tree of heavy firearms specific feats that work of strength (because these weapons are more about controlling recoil, or at least wielding a very heavy weapon, then having great eye hand coordination) would probably fit in here also.
The Fast Hero would get firearm and light blade/light thrown (rogue weapon) related powers. These powers would all be bout high damage and dealing effects against the Fast Hero's enemies. His powers would pretty much be all Dexterity based.
The Smart Hero would get a mix of powers that are not based on weapons at all, and maybe a couple weapons powers. His weapon powers would be called something like "smart shot," would use his Int and not his Dexterity, and would not deal great damage. They would, however, deal lots of status effects. His powers that are not based off weapons would require that he possess a "tool kit," and would pretty much allow him to create AoE persistent zone/trap effects. Pretty much, he gets to be McGuiver (spelling?), building things on the fly as needed. These powers would require the use of a tool kit. These powers would also be based of Intelligence.
The Charismatic Hero would get a mix of powers that are not based on weapons at all, and maybe a couple weapons powers. His weapon powers would not be about dealing damage. They would, in fact, deal poor damage. They would pretty much be basic ranged/melee attacks (maybe a little better, but you get my point). However, these powers would allow his allies to instantly perform certain actions, often attacks, with significant bonuses. This hero would not be all about doing great damage himself, but rather being able to allow his friends to get extra attacks. Additionally, this character would also get attack powers that don't use weapons at all. Instead these attack powers do no damage, but deal status effects like domination, dazed, etc. Basically, the ability to talk people down. All of his non weapon based powers would be based off Charisma. All of his weapon based powers would be based of Str (for melee) or Dex (for ranged) but would grant bonuses to his allies actions based off his Charisma.
The Dedicated hero would get a mix of powers not based on weapons at all, and maybe a couple of weapons powers. His weapon powers would not be about dealing damage. They would be similar to the Charismatic Hero's powers. Basically, a basic ranged attack. However, his powers would grant his allies the ability to spend healing surges, gain damage reduction, regeneration, that sort of thing. The attack would be based of Str (for melee) or Dex (for ranged) but would grant bonuses to his allies based of his Wisdom. Not sure what sort of non weapons based powers this character should get, but they should definitely get something. Something appropriate to the "I'm not attacking with a weapon, but I am still doing something beneficial to the group" theme.
Like I said, a Tough Defender, a Strong and Fast Striker, A Smart Controller, and a Charismatic and Dedicated Leader. The Tough, Strong, and Fast characters would have the good weapons based attacks. The other characters might get some weapons based attacks (just like the d20 Modern characters of this sort can still fire weapons), but the damage with these attacks would be poor. Their primary contribution is not through making this attack, but through the ability to either control the battlefield, or benefit their allies.
All of the above characters should also have a lot of utility powers which aid them outside of combat. Athletics based utility powers for the strong hero. Stealth/acrobatics based utility powers for the fast hero. Endurance based utility powers for the tough hero. Knowledge based utility powers for the smart hero. Intimidate/Diplomacy based utility powers for the charismatic hero. Heal/Perception/Intuition based utility powers for the dedicated hero. I would like more non-combat utility based options than those offered to D&D characters. I feel there are not enough non-combat utility based options for a lot of classes in 4e D&D.
Obviously some kinks will need to be worked out.
And obviously a MUCH more multiclass free system then what D&D offers will have to be implemented. Characters should pretty much be able to freely take powers from any class. I think the best way would probably be to let characters take powers from any class's power list, but to have characters gain the "class abilities" only of their 1st level starting class (meaning that that class will somewhat flavor the rest of your character, and will always be your "primary flavor" of class, even if you don't take most of your powers from that class). For example, Fast Heroes might get something like a bonus to defense when not wearing heavy armor, or a bonus to their movement rate, or some sort of damage bonus, or something like that. Tough heroes might get the ability to use second wind twice per encounter instead of only once. That sort of thing. These benefits would only come from picking a class, and would not be attainable through "multiclassing."
That is what I want my new d20 Modern to look like. At least, in relation to combat. The above is really only 1/2 the picture. I want an equal amount of effort to be put into making a robust non-combat encounter resolution system of mechanics as well. And just like every character should have some way of contributing in combat, every character should have some way of contributing outside of combat.
There has been lots of chat over the years for fixing the Melee/Ranged combatant disparity in BAB. Since we are talking about forming entirely new classes with a new way of dishing out abilities, we can take this opportunity to take care of an old problem.... the StrMA Sniper Syndrome.
Modern4 Roles
D&D4e needs to have roles, because they plan to publish 1.7million Classes and ParagonPaths and they need to have a cataloging system cause nobody can keep all that in their head. Modern4 will be lucky to get two dozen classes, which is ok because we had the Talent Tree system to adjust class specialties (In theory).
Looking at the Modern theme, we can easily get the Talent Tree specialization back into Modern4: Heroic Headings
Heroic Headings
We just put a class ability in each class, the ability to take Heroic Heading features from listed Headings. Is this just stapling on more power to classes? Not really, since all classes get more ability it is balanced. Does this make PCs more powerful than Monster? define 'monster'.... more powerful than d20Modern monsters, yes.... more powerful than the updated Modern4 monsters, no because when we update the d20monsters to Modern4 (like frontloading HP and giving them encounter powers) we will just set the monsters to the power scale of the PCs that all have Heroic Headings.
<< Kobald: 1/4CR: Full Attack Spear +1 melee (1d6–1) or sling +3 ranged (1d3)
<< Kobald: 1/6CR: Full Attack Knife -1 melee (1d3–2), or Pathfinder –2 ranged (2d4)
<< Different games, different power scales
Modern4 Role- THUG
The role of Thugs can have modern classes like Fighter Gunman MA
and they in turn can have Heroic Headings that grant more focused abilities.
Fighter Class Headings: Melee Specialist , Archaic Specialist, Generalist (ranged blend)
Gunman Class Headings: Marksman, HeavyWeaponsGuy, TWF FTW, Infantry(blend)
KungFu Class Headings: Power, Speed, Accuracy, The4Winds(blend)
Brute Class Headings: Survivor(+HP), Crusher, Neanderthal (blend)
Modern4 Role Expert-
BlueCollar Class Headings: Crafter, Mechanic, Armory, Tradesman (+combat blend)
WhiteCollar Class Headings: Techie, Scholar, Professional, Weekend Warrior (combat blend)
Now the fun part-
Some class Headings will progress faster than others!
BlueCollar:Mechanic will get features every level while Gunman:Marksman might get 1/3level
Why?
Cause the NON-Combat Heroic Headings dont crush the combat power balance when they get a +2 on a noncombat skill roll, but it would clobber the combat balance if we hand out +1Tohits to the Marksman every level.
This is where we can put the noncombat specializations, for classes that get weak WillEncounterDaily kill powers
Its like Modern Talent Trees, but for Modern
Except, that is not how 4e works.
This, I think, is a big fundamental difference. You're trying to find a way to make 4e run a game in a modern/futuristic setting. I'm trying to find a way to make a more up-to-date rules set. And for me, if that means killing a 4e sacred cow, I will cheerfully get out my CowKiller2000. "That's not how 4e works" is up there with "THAC0 is a core concept in D&D" in terms of useless and undefensible concepts.
Thugs get Exploits
Experts get Facilitators
Daily Journal of Jimmy the Squeeler
Had toast & coffee for breakfast... almost had MeatyMountain Scramble, but Al got back from the phone before I could run off with his food.
Encounter 1: Al & Fred roughed up some losers... I "watched their back"
Encounter 2: Trapped doornob... I used my AtWill Supersearcher facilitator and Encounter MechanicMastery facilitators to save the party (not that I got any thanx)
Encounter 3: While Princess was talking to the receptionist I grabbed some files somebody dropped... into a cabinet... and locked it.... These guys hire very thorough droppers, but I plied my MechanicMastery encounter facilitator to help with the lock after I scoped it for traps with the SuperSearcher AtWill facilitator
Lunch sucked.... till I grabbed a half a plate of free nachos some other guy didnt finish
Encounter 4: Some warehouse Princess found out about had a Rogers K27 alarm for a double throw bolt rollup door.... Nuthin a little SuperSearcher and TechPacifier facilitators coundnt handle
Encounter 5: BigAl looked like bad bad leroy brown when them dogs jumped him. Him & Fred drug 2 of them off fighting behind some crates while Princess started playing fetch with the third.... uh... while I "covered her back"
Tonight we are going into the guys offices again, and I bet there will be plenty of encounters of Locks Traps and Alarms
................................
Why not use Encounter Facilitators on all impedences you encounter?
Is a locked door an encounter?
It is if you cant open the lock and go home.... its an encounter YOU LOST!
...
In my ideal world, the Tough Hero would get both melee and heavy thrown weapon related powers. Neither of these powers would be particularly strong (in comparison to the Strong/Fast hero powers) in terms of damage or debilitating effects placed on the enemy. However, a lot of these powers would allow the Tough Hero to spend a healing surge after making the attack, or gain damage reduction as a secondary buff benefit, or regeneration, or that sort of thing. Also, a lot of his powers would allow him to make interrupt and/or reaction based attacks against enemies who attack the Tough Heroes friends. His melee/thrown based powers would be based off STR, but Con would be the primary ability off which all of his class abilities and secondary healing/buff based powers will be based off of.
The Strong Hero would get melee and heavy thrown weapon related powers. These powers would be all about high damage and dealing effects against the Strong Hero's enemies. His powers would pretty much all work of Strength. A tree of heavy firearms specific feats that work of strength (because these weapons are more about controlling recoil, or at least wielding a very heavy weapon, then having great eye hand coordination) would probably fit in here also.
The Fast Hero would get firearm and light blade/light thrown (rogue weapon) related powers. These powers would all be bout high damage and dealing effects against the Fast Hero's enemies. His powers would pretty much be all Dexterity based.
The Smart Hero would get a mix of powers that are not based on weapons at all, and maybe a couple weapons powers. His weapon powers would be called something like "smart shot," would use his Int and not his Dexterity, and would not deal great damage. They would, however, deal lots of status effects. His powers that are not based off weapons would require that he possess a "tool kit," and would pretty much allow him to create AoE persistent zone/trap effects. Pretty much, he gets to be McGuiver (spelling?), building things on the fly as needed. These powers would require the use of a tool kit. These powers would also be based of Intelligence.
The Charismatic Hero would get a mix of powers that are not based on weapons at all, and maybe a couple weapons powers. His weapon powers would not be about dealing damage. They would, in fact, deal poor damage. They would pretty much be basic ranged/melee attacks (maybe a little better, but you get my point). However, these powers would allow his allies to instantly perform certain actions, often attacks, with significant bonuses. This hero would not be all about doing great damage himself, but rather being able to allow his friends to get extra attacks. Additionally, this character would also get attack powers that don't use weapons at all. Instead these attack powers do no damage, but deal status effects like domination, dazed, etc. Basically, the ability to talk people down. All of his non weapon based powers would be based off Charisma. All of his weapon based powers would be based of Str (for melee) or Dex (for ranged) but would grant bonuses to his allies actions based off his Charisma.
The Dedicated hero would get a mix of powers not based on weapons at all, and maybe a couple of weapons powers. His weapon powers would not be about dealing damage. They would be similar to the Charismatic Hero's powers. Basically, a basic ranged attack. However, his powers would grant his allies the ability to spend healing surges, gain damage reduction, regeneration, that sort of thing. The attack would be based of Str (for melee) or Dex (for ranged) but would grant bonuses to his allies based of his Wisdom. Not sure what sort of non weapons based powers this character should get, but they should definitely get something. Something appropriate to the "I'm not attacking with a weapon, but I am still doing something beneficial to the group" theme.
Like I said, a Tough Defender, a Strong and Fast Striker, A Smart Controller, and a Charismatic and Dedicated Leader. The Tough, Strong, and Fast characters would have the good weapons based attacks. The other characters might get some weapons based attacks (just like the d20 Modern characters of this sort can still fire weapons), but the damage with these attacks would be poor. Their primary contribution is not through making this attack, but through the ability to either control the battlefield, or benefit their allies.
All of the above characters should also have a lot of utility powers which aid them outside of combat. Athletics based utility powers for the strong hero. Stealth/acrobatics based utility powers for the fast hero. Endurance based utility powers for the tough hero. Knowledge based utility powers for the smart hero. Intimidate/Diplomacy based utility powers for the charismatic hero. Heal/Perception/Intuition based utility powers for the dedicated hero. I would like more non-combat utility based options than those offered to D&D characters. I feel there are not enough non-combat utility based options for a lot of classes in 4e D&D.
Obviously some kinks will need to be worked out.
And obviously a MUCH more multiclass free system then what D&D offers will have to be implemented. Characters should pretty much be able to freely take powers from any class. I think the best way would probably be to let characters take powers from any class's power list, but to have characters gain the "class abilities" only of their 1st level starting class (meaning that that class will somewhat flavor the rest of your character, and will always be your "primary flavor" of class, even if you don't take most of your powers from that class). For example, Fast Heroes might get something like a bonus to defense when not wearing heavy armor, or a bonus to their movement rate, or some sort of damage bonus, or something like that. Tough heroes might get the ability to use second wind twice per encounter instead of only once. That sort of thing. These benefits would only come from picking a class, and would not be attainable through "multiclassing."
That is what I want my new d20 Modern to look like. At least, in relation to combat. The above is really only 1/2 the picture. I want an equal amount of effort to be put into making a robust non-combat encounter resolution system of mechanics as well. And just like every character should have some way of contributing in combat, every character should have some way of contributing outside of combat.
THIS is what I was asking about...
So if 4E Modern keeps the six basic classes in a manner similar to the above, Should Advanced classes become Paragon Paths? Should Prestige Classes become Epic Destinies?
I'm just trying to keep the ball rolling...
...
In my ideal world, the Tough Hero would get both melee and heavy thrown weapon related powers. Neither of these powers would be particularly strong (in comparison to the Strong/Fast hero powers) in terms of damage or debilitating effects placed on the enemy. However, a lot of these powers would allow the Tough Hero to spend a healing surge after making the attack, or gain damage reduction as a secondary buff benefit, or regeneration, or that sort of thing. Also, a lot of his powers would allow him to make interrupt and/or reaction based attacks against enemies who attack the Tough Heroes friends. His melee/thrown based powers would be based off STR, but Con would be the primary ability off which all of his class abilities and secondary healing/buff based powers will be based off of.
The Strong Hero would get melee and heavy thrown weapon related powers. These powers would be all about high damage and dealing effects against the Strong Hero's enemies. His powers would pretty much all work of Strength. A tree of heavy firearms specific feats that work of strength (because these weapons are more about controlling recoil, or at least wielding a very heavy weapon, then having great eye hand coordination) would probably fit in here also.
The Fast Hero would get firearm and light blade/light thrown (rogue weapon) related powers. These powers would all be bout high damage and dealing effects against the Fast Hero's enemies. His powers would pretty much be all Dexterity based.
The Smart Hero would get a mix of powers that are not based on weapons at all, and maybe a couple weapons powers. His weapon powers would be called something like "smart shot," would use his Int and not his Dexterity, and would not deal great damage. They would, however, deal lots of status effects. His powers that are not based off weapons would require that he possess a "tool kit," and would pretty much allow him to create AoE persistent zone/trap effects. Pretty much, he gets to be McGuiver (spelling?), building things on the fly as needed. These powers would require the use of a tool kit. These powers would also be based of Intelligence.
The Charismatic Hero would get a mix of powers that are not based on weapons at all, and maybe a couple weapons powers. His weapon powers would not be about dealing damage. They would, in fact, deal poor damage. They would pretty much be basic ranged/melee attacks (maybe a little better, but you get my point). However, these powers would allow his allies to instantly perform certain actions, often attacks, with significant bonuses. This hero would not be all about doing great damage himself, but rather being able to allow his friends to get extra attacks. Additionally, this character would also get attack powers that don't use weapons at all. Instead these attack powers do no damage, but deal status effects like domination, dazed, etc. Basically, the ability to talk people down. All of his non weapon based powers would be based off Charisma. All of his weapon based powers would be based of Str (for melee) or Dex (for ranged) but would grant bonuses to his allies actions based off his Charisma.
The Dedicated hero would get a mix of powers not based on weapons at all, and maybe a couple of weapons powers. His weapon powers would not be about dealing damage. They would be similar to the Charismatic Hero's powers. Basically, a basic ranged attack. However, his powers would grant his allies the ability to spend healing surges, gain damage reduction, regeneration, that sort of thing. The attack would be based of Str (for melee) or Dex (for ranged) but would grant bonuses to his allies based of his Wisdom. Not sure what sort of non weapons based powers this character should get, but they should definitely get something. Something appropriate to the "I'm not attacking with a weapon, but I am still doing something beneficial to the group" theme.
Like I said, a Tough Defender, a Strong and Fast Striker, A Smart Controller, and a Charismatic and Dedicated Leader. The Tough, Strong, and Fast characters would have the good weapons based attacks. The other characters might get some weapons based attacks (just like the d20 Modern characters of this sort can still fire weapons), but the damage with these attacks would be poor. Their primary contribution is not through making this attack, but through the ability to either control the battlefield, or benefit their allies.
All of the above characters should also have a lot of utility powers which aid them outside of combat. Athletics based utility powers for the strong hero. Stealth/acrobatics based utility powers for the fast hero. Endurance based utility powers for the tough hero. Knowledge based utility powers for the smart hero. Intimidate/Diplomacy based utility powers for the charismatic hero. Heal/Perception/Intuition based utility powers for the dedicated hero. I would like more non-combat utility based options than those offered to D&D characters. I feel there are not enough non-combat utility based options for a lot of classes in 4e D&D.
Obviously some kinks will need to be worked out.
And obviously a MUCH more multiclass free system then what D&D offers will have to be implemented. Characters should pretty much be able to freely take powers from any class. I think the best way would probably be to let characters take powers from any class's power list, but to have characters gain the "class abilities" only of their 1st level starting class (meaning that that class will somewhat flavor the rest of your character, and will always be your "primary flavor" of class, even if you don't take most of your powers from that class). For example, Fast Heroes might get something like a bonus to defense when not wearing heavy armor, or a bonus to their movement rate, or some sort of damage bonus, or something like that. Tough heroes might get the ability to use second wind twice per encounter instead of only once. That sort of thing. These benefits would only come from picking a class, and would not be attainable through "multiclassing."
That is what I want my new d20 Modern to look like. At least, in relation to combat. The above is really only 1/2 the picture. I want an equal amount of effort to be put into making a robust non-combat encounter resolution system of mechanics as well. And just like every character should have some way of contributing in combat, every character should have some way of contributing outside of combat.
THIS is what I was asking about...
So if 4E Modern keeps the six basic classes in a manner similar to the above, Should Advanced classes become Paragon Paths? Should Prestige Classes become Epic Destinies?
I'm just trying to keep the ball rolling...
WW
which post did you ask that in?
So while trying to figure out weapons and autofire and construction rules, it seems like we need to figure out exactly how we want classes to work in 4E Modern... do we just use D&D classes and add modern equipment? or do we make modern equivalents of the D&D classes? or do we make 4E versions of the basic classes and turn Advanced Classes into Paragon Paths? and what do we do about the Epic Tier?
Any thoughts?
Before any meaningful work can begin on a 4E version of Modern, we have to know what the basic classes are going to be.
And that will allow folks to determine what the powers for each class should be.
Once that's decided, you can figure how/if multiclassing might work, and so on...
This, I think, is a big fundamental difference. You're trying to find a way to make 4e run a game in a modern/futuristic setting. I'm trying to find a way to make a more up-to-date rules set. And for me, if that means killing a 4e sacred cow, I will cheerfully get out my CowKiller2000. "That's not how 4e works" is up there with "THAC0 is a core concept in D&D" in terms of useless and undefensible concepts.
There is no fundamental difference. We are both trying to do the same thing. We are both trying to create a more up-to-date set of rules. You misunderstood what I wrote. I'm sorry. I thought I made it clear, but I was obviously mistaken. I'm sorry, I will try and be more clear. (EDIT: Reading this paragraph, it really sounds like I am being sarcastic. I am not. Please take what I have written here in good faith. I mean exactly what I said. I did not intend to place a sarcastic tone on my words.)
To clarify, I was not saying "I agree that this statement that you made is an accurate representation of how 4e works, and as your desire is not how 4e works, we should not build the game in that direction."
What I was saying is that this statement:
But having every character equally handy with a sword or whatever with base attack rolls, as is the case in 4e D&D, just isn't in the spirit of Modern.
Is not (in my opinion) accurate. You are correct that having every character be equally hand with a sword or whatever would not be in the spirit of Modern. However, in 4e, not every character is equally handy with a sword. Characters like wizards are awful with a sword unless a good amount of resources, and multiclassing, is spent making up for their deficiency. Just because all characters have "attack powers" does not mean that all attack powers are designed as "the ability to become skillful with a weapon." It is very possible to build attack powers to represent not being skillful with a weapon, but rather performing some activity that allows the hero to directly contribute in combat. I then went on to write a wall of text which pretty much described how I imagined the powers of each class in d20 Modern be designed.
Basically, what I want is for every character to be able to contribute to combat. I think combat roles help describe/quantify how a class is supposed to contribute to combat. But this does not mean that all classes will be awesome at wielding weapons, and doing amazing damage with those weapons. The Smart, Charismatic, and Dedicated hero will pretty much be poor weapon wielders. Even when they do have weapon based attack powers, those attack powers will only do a fraction of the damage that the Tough/Fast/Strong weapon powers of equal level would be doing. What makes the Smart/Charismatic/Dedicated attack powers as good as Tough, Strong, and Fast hero weapon powers would be either the secondary benefits granted after the attack is made, an attack that will often not require that the character be wielding a weapon at all. After all, why does a charismatic hero need to be using a weapon to use their "Switch Sides" attack power, which effectively allows them to "Dominate" an NPC by talking that NPC into switching sides on the fly? There is no reason for a weapon to even be present when such a power is used.
THIS is what I was asking about...
So if 4E Modern keeps the six basic classes in a manner similar to the above, Should Advanced classes become Paragon Paths? Should Prestige Classes become Epic Destinies?
I'm just trying to keep the ball rolling...
Honestly, I don't even really want Epic levels in my d20 Modern. I wouldn't mind if they included them... but they are not the sort of Modern I want to run. I would stop my Modern games at 20th level. The Epic-pretty much a step away from being a god phase of play works well for the sort of D&D stories I want to tell, but not for the sort of Modern stories that interest me. I mean, honestly, in a non magical world, who wants to tell the story of hero who is immortal? Pretty much every epic level character is... So, if they do include play from 21-30th level in a 4e based d20 Modern, I wouldn't be bothered, but I probably would not run those sort of games. I would just run a game from level 1-20, and then call it quits. At that point in time, it would be time for a new campaign.
So, as far as I am concerned, Epic Destinies have nothing to do with the Modern I want to play.
The Paragon Path mechanic is similar to what I imagine advanced classes becoming, but not quite the same.
I imagine something along these lines: "Advanced Paths." You gain one at 3rd level. And then Paragon Paths. You gain those at 11th level. Paragon Paths work pretty much exactly like D&D Paragon Paths. You only get one. Advanced Paths essentially offer a new "Advanced (class) Ability" (something like the 11th, 11th, and 16th level Paragon Path features) that boosts your existing class powers. Maybe they would grant one per-encounter ability. Or perhaps a new "at-will" ability which can replace one of your existing at-will powers. Something like that is pretty much what I imagine.
This, I think, is a big fundamental difference. You're trying to find a way to make 4e run a game in a modern/futuristic setting. I'm trying to find a way to make a more up-to-date rules set. And for me, if that means killing a 4e sacred cow, I will cheerfully get out my CowKiller2000. "That's not how 4e works" is up there with "THAC0 is a core concept in D&D" in terms of useless and undefensible concepts.
that is exactly why I dont try to make Modern 4e ("4e" logo GSL Restricted) game system
I'm making a Modern4
You may recognize many features D&D4e Fanatsy Fightgame has,
but it aint "4e".... its Modern4 RPG where player may still choose noncombat RP Roles
If a Fighter gets Atatck Powers ("exploit")
shouldnt Mechanic Class get a RepairPower("facilitator") for each AttackPower the fighter gets?
'I'm a fighter, I get Attack Powers'
I'm a mechanic, and for some reason I get attack powers too... even though I want Repair Powers to help me do what I spend 8hr a day doing
that is exactly why I dont try to make Modern 4e ("4e" logo GSL Restricted) game system
I'm making a Modern4
You may recognize many features D&D4e Fanatsy Fightgame has,
but it aint "4e"
No offense intended Bs, but this thread is specifically about "4e Modern Classes".
No offense intended Bs, but this thread is specifically about "4e Modern Classes".
well since I started this thread, allow me to clarify what it is "Specifically About"...
IF one wants to define Modern Classes for use with the 4E game mechanics, how would one go about doing that?
There... that's what I was trying to get at... and I agree with Backstabbist; a Modern game based on 4E isn't going to be "4E", its going to be its own game Modern2.0 or whatever... because there will need to be new skills, new feats and new powers that don't exist in D&D4E
But I have to agree with the gist of what MichaPilot was getting at. Lines like
You may recognize many features D&D4e Fanatsy Fightgame has,
are offensive, and serve no real purpose except to insight reactions/edition warring. I mean, what is the point of making a statement that seems to be objectively saying that 4e is about nothing more than fantasy fighting. The 4e proponents of this board, and a lot of the 4e fans in general, have already stated that they love 4e not only for what we feel is a better system of combat resolution, but also because we prefer its system of non-combat resolution. 4e forces characters to be good in combat. But it does not do away with non combat system resolution mechanics. Reading something like that makes it seem like backstabbists post has nothing positive to contribute, and was just an attempt to nay-say against 4e and get a rise out of those of us who like it. That is probably why MechaPilot wrote what he wrote.
To clarify, I was not saying "I agree that this statement that you made is an accurate representation of how 4e works, and as your desire is not how 4e works, we should not build the game in that direction."
Apology accepted (and please accept my apology for not double checking for your original intended meaning).
I think My main issue with 4e is the as follows:
base attack bonus is the same for all classes, regardless of specialisation. A fighter and wizard are both equally good at hitting something (or using a skill, or whatever), at any given level. The differences are generated with class powers. This kind of works for a system in which no one is ever allowed to multi-class in any meaningful way (3e's multi-classing system is very restrictive, and doesn't really count as that to me). But in a situation where anyone could be allowed to freely multi-class 3e style, it is broken.
I'm toying with a system where each class gets a "bab" which is different for each of melee, missile, and "caster level", and possibly extending that to skills too (so instead of spending skill points, you get a "good" (or whatever) progression on your Jump (and other) skills). This, combined with class powers, would work nicely, I think.
Variable bab progressions are important if you allow multi-classing, to prevent the tough hero from getting to a high level, dipping into charismatic for one level, and being an instant expert on whichever charismatic hero power he picks up. With varying progressions, his "poor" progression in charisma skills for the tough hero levels mean that he will never be as good at the charismatic hero powers as the guy who was a charismatic hero from the start. Specialisation should carry a reward by being more effective. Conversely, the guy with 9 levels of charismatic shouldn't become an instant gun-bunny by dipping into fast hero for a level.
The other issue is that in 4e, your powers are all about combat. It's fine saying that you can of course still RP everything that isn't combat, but the rules go into such heavy detail on combat, and gloss over other situations so lightly, that a newcomer could be forgiven for thinking everything outside of combat is irrelevant to the game. The new skill challenge rules, imho, formalise non-combat situations in a way that detracts from decent RP (but that's an essay in itself, which I won't go into here).
To be fair, a lot of 3e powers were also combat related. Most of them, probably. But it is a lot harder to see them in 4e's layout.
The next issue I have with 4e is that it feels more as if it's a medieval fantasy superheroes game rather than believable "ordinary folk" who become heroes. 4e goes out of its way to make sure than even 1st level characters have a very good chance of winning against an equal number of orcs, even to the extent of creating a "minion" category of monster. In 3e, battle can be a lot riskier at low level. 4e effectively removed the style of play in which combat is scary and likely to result in at least one hero dead. 3e at least allowed the option of playing that way or starting characters at 4th level (or whatever level), but 4e doesn't allow for that style without a lot of tweaking.
A Modern ruleset absolutely must allow for the possibility of a style of play in which combat isn't a forgone conclusion against an equal number of similarly-armed enemies. There are too many genres it needs to allow for in which combat is not the first choice for encounter resolution.
(there may be other issues, but that's enough for now)
base attack bonus is the same for all classes, regardless of specialisation. A fighter and wizard are both equally good at hitting something (or using a skill, or whatever), at any given level. The differences are generated with class powers. This kind of works for a system in which no one is ever allowed to multi-class in any meaningful way (3e's multi-classing system is very restrictive, and doesn't really count as that to me). But in a situation where anyone could be allowed to freely multi-class 3e style, it is broken.
1) I am pretty sure you meant 4e multiclassing system, not 3e.
2) I largely think that your issue is a conceptual block. All characters in 4e get a base bonus to attack equal to 1/2 there level. This is true. I can see why someone used to the 3e paradigm might feel this way. But it is not true that all characters actually gain the same bonuses to hit. In fact, the 4e system works much the way your proposed system does. Everyone has a different "BAB" with each melee and ranged weapon. This also in some ways extends to skills, though in the case of skills it a combination of the race and not just the class that dictates ones progression.
You see, depending on your starting class, you gain different weapon proficiencies. In 4e, any given weapons comes with a proficiency bonus to hit based on the type of weapon being used. A fighter gets lots of these. A rogue is only good with rogue weapons. A wizard gains virtually none. This means that with a weapon, a fighters starting package makes him have a decent attack bonus right out of the box. A higher attack bonus then a wizard would have. This effect is further produced via 4e stat gain and progression methods. A character can have up to two key stats of up to 28 end game. Doing so will result in extremely low stats in all other areas. Now, the lower those two key stats end up being, the higher you can cause your other stats to increase. For example, having three end game stats of 22 is within reason. The difference in a stat bonus of 28 and 22 is +3. In 4e all character classes have 2 key stats. A primary and a secondary. The primary is where most of your attack bonuses come from. The secondary is where most of your class benefits come from. If you want to multiclass, and are trying to multiclass to gain powers that don't use the same stat as your primary class, you must sacrifice some of your primar/secondary stat bonuses in favor of a tertiary stat. This makes your multiclass powers viable, but at the cost of loosing some of your bonuses to hit with your primary class powers. Between stats, and the loss of bonuses to hit for not having a base proficiency with a weapon (or else the loss of a feat that could have been spent on your primary class in order to gain the benefit of knowing how to use a weapon) you have essentially achieved exactly what you proposed. Each class gains its own "bab" progression for each different weapon. A wizard is not good with a sword. They will end up with a drastically lower bonus to hit when wielding a sword then a fighter, even if they multiclass into fighter for fighter powers. Of course, to some extent, this can be alleviated by spending feats and spreading out your stats a little more. But, this will usually still result in having a few less bonus points to hit across the board, and the mechanic of spending feats is how multiclassing is done in 4e. So, from my paradigm, this is really no different then 3e mechanic of multiclassing into a class with a higher BAB in order increase your BAB, and ending up with a BAB somewhere between what you would have if you chose to gain levels only in a single one of those two classes. And, lets not forget, to multiclass at all one must give up some of their class powers in favor of their multiclass powers.
In terms of skills, the combination of "class skill lists" (and the need to spend feats to train a skill outside of your class skill lists), racial +2 bonus to certain certain skills (which, in a Modern game, would have to be translated into a profession bonus), and the stat mechanic described above, the same effect as your proposed effect is pretty much achieved in 4e already.
The other issue is that in 4e, your powers are all about combat. It's fine saying that you can of course still RP everything that isn't combat, but the rules go into such heavy detail on combat, and gloss over other situations so lightly, that a newcomer could be forgiven for thinking everything outside of combat is irrelevant to the game. The new skill challenge rules, imho, formalise non-combat situations in a way that detracts from decent RP (but that's an essay in itself, which I won't go into here).
That is not quite true. 4e does have utility powers. For some of these classes, many of these utility powers are primarily beneficial for skill use, and not for combat use. This makes them non-combat powers. I personally would like ALL classes to have such non-combat utility powers (the fighter stands out as a class that pretty much gets none). But, the basic mechanic of including non-combat powers already exists in 4e. Couple this with skills, some sort of non-magical version of rituals, and skill challenges, and all the components of a robust non-combat system are present in the 4e mechanics. Some tweaking will be required. I'm not saying everything should work exactly the same as 4e D&D does. But the basic components are present. The basic mechanics, I think, should stay the same. Its the specifics of class and item design, and the specifics of multiclassing, and the ritual and alchemy system (which needs to be made non-magical) that need some tweaking to work in a Modern game.
And I REALLY disagree about the skill challenge system. I was already pretty much doing something along those lines for my d20 Modern games when I played. When I saw that something along the lines of what I was already intuitively doing with my 3e games was hard coded for 4e, I was ecstatic. Mind you, I would be a lot happier if the hard coding was not botched (meaning I still need to design the challenges intuitively in order to make them work), but the premise is fantastic. I don't think it hinders role-playing at all.
To be fair, a lot of 3e powers were also combat related. Most of them, probably. But it is a lot harder to see them in 4e's layout.
Again, I personally disagree. From my perspective and paradigm, the combat elements of the 3e d20 Modern powers was obvious. I saw them right away. Classes like the rogue, in 4e, potentially get more non-combat powers endgame. It is very possible to end up with 10 combat powers and 7 non combat powers end game. That makes almost 1/2 of their powers non combat. 41% of their powers will be non-combat powers to be exact.
The next issue I have with 4e is that it feels more as if it's a medieval fantasy superheroes game rather than believable "ordinary folk" who become heroes. 4e goes out of its way to make sure than even 1st level characters have a very good chance of winning against an equal number of orcs, even to the extent of creating a "minion" category of monster. In 3e, battle can be a lot riskier at low level. 4e effectively removed the style of play in which combat is scary and likely to result in at least one hero dead. 3e at least allowed the option of playing that way or starting characters at 4th level (or whatever level), but 4e doesn't allow for that style without a lot of tweaking.
And I also 100% disagree with this assertion. It is true that 3e was a game that could be very risky at low level. But, it was not risky in a manner that I found fun. Its style of risk was a random toss of the dice where player decision and NPC actions had no real effect on the outcome. 4e is absolutely less swingy. In this sense, it is less risky. However, 1st level players are just as threatened, if not more, by creatures of an equal level as they ever were in earlier editions of D&D. Creature HP is also boosted. And, in 4e, which powers you use when really matter. You are not going to do low/high damage with your weapon/attack only based on a random roll of the dice, but also based on the choice of which power you use when. The end result is that kobolds in 4e are a very real threat to 1st level characters! More so then they ever were before. There are countless groups who have faced a TPK against the kobold fights in KotS (the first module released by WotC for 4e). And, at higher levels, 4e characters are more at risk of being dropped into the dying state than 3e characters were. The higher level you go, the lower the 4e characters hit points are, and the higher the damage they will take (especially when the damage is calculated in ratio to their hit points). 4e isn't safer, its just more tactical. stupid decisions get you killed. Smart decisions make the fights seem much easier. I don't see a problem with that. I don't like it when fights are based only on random die rolls. If I wanted to play a game that was purely based on random chance, I would just play "flip the coin."
And the "minion" mechanic is really not that different then the "non-heroic" mechanic. It really does allow for some extremely cinematic action scenes, scenes which I think have as much place in Modern games as D&D games. I mean hell, just watch any Indiana Jones movie!
A Modern ruleset absolutely must allow for the possibility of a style of play in which combat isn't a forgone conclusion against an equal number of similarly-armed enemies. There are too many genres it needs to allow for in which combat is not the first choice for encounter resolution.
Absolutely. I agree. But I think this is already the case in 4e.
So, I don't know. If my argument didn't sway you, fair enough, but then we will just have to agree to disagree. I see the issue from a very different paradigm.
1) Yes, i meant 4e. just checking if you were reading closely :oops:
2) I see you point, but I disagree. Whiel teh 4e paradigm does create a measurable difference, that difference is not divergent, which it is in 3e. By this,. I mean that the gap in each ability (melee, casting, whatever) grows as you level up in 3e, but in 4e, that gap remains constant across levels. I think 4e had a design goal of keeping the gap the same. In a system that allows truly free multi-classing, "keeping the gap the same" is better done by having the character multi-class appropriately, not by artificialy boosting the scientist's gun skills.
re. low-level swinginess - I regard this as a feature, not a bug. At very low levels, characters are essentially little better-trained than a regular joe, and that swinginess reflects this lack of real competence. If the player knows his cahracter is at a real risk of dying in a stand-up fight, he will work hard to stack the odds shamelessly in his favour (by pre-battle planning and manipulating local terrain beforehand where possible) is he must fight, and avouid actual combat otherwise. In 4e, that kind of combat planning is demoted in favour of planning which power to use next round. Of course, I agree this feature is not for everyone, and that's why GMs always have teh option to start campaigns at a higher level where such swinginess is no longer important.
I agree the minion mechanic has its place in a cinematic case where the PC are expected to mow down NPCs. BUt 4e doesn't allow for the opposite scenario, where PCs shouldn't expect to win a fight. In 4e, it feels as if fighting is always an option. In many modern stories, that isn't true.
2) I see you point, but I disagree. Whiel teh 4e paradigm does create a measurable difference, that difference is not divergent, which it is in 3e. By this,. I mean that the gap in each ability (melee, casting, whatever) grows as you level up in 3e, but in 4e, that gap remains constant across levels. I think 4e had a design goal of keeping the gap the same. In a system that allows truly free multi-classing, "keeping the gap the same" is better done by having the character multi-class appropriately, not by artificialy boosting the scientist's gun skills.
But that is just not true. The gap is not kept the same. Due to the progression of stat growth, which (as I said) is part of how the "different BABs" are coded into the 4e system, the gap does grow as one levels. In order to choose to have a total bonus to hit that will actually allow you to hit your enemies with a tertiary stat's power at any given level, you must choose to not raise one of your primary stats, which results in a slightly lower bonus to hit with that stat's powers. Its completely balanced, and I much prefer the way that works then any of the alternative that I have seen. Using a system such as this, the Fast Hero will finally be better at hitting things with light weapons and firearms, and the Strong Hero will finally be better at hitting things with melee weapons and heavy artillery. If you multiclass between both, you will be equally good with both, but probably not quite as good as you would have been if you had specialized in just one (unless you give up some other stat, which means that you will be loosing out on some class benefits from another area). No more of this "The Fast Hero is the gun class, but the Strong Hero is better at hitting things with a gun," silliness.
re. low-level swinginess - I regard this as a feature, not a bug. At very low levels, characters are essentially little better-trained than a regular joe, and that swinginess reflects this lack of real competence. If the player knows his cahracter is at a real risk of dying in a stand-up fight, he will work hard to stack the odds shamelessly in his favour (by pre-battle planning and manipulating local terrain beforehand where possible) is he must fight, and avouid actual combat otherwise. In 4e, that kind of combat planning is demoted in favour of planning which power to use next round. Of course, I agree this feature is not for everyone, and that's why GMs always have teh option to start campaigns at a higher level where such swinginess is no longer important.
We will have to agree to disagree. I hated the swinginess of lower level combat in all 3e games. And, I can't really say that "planning" actually helps lower level parties in 3e. I think the premise of "planning" and "use your terrain" is far more prevalent and present in 4e than it was before. And, I much prefer the fact that one lives or dies based on their decisions, not random luck. But, different tastes and all. Lets celebrate our subjective differences! :P
I agree the minion mechanic has its place in a cinematic case where the PC are expected to mow down NPCs. BUt 4e doesn't allow for the opposite scenario, where PCs shouldn't expect to win a fight. In 4e, it feels as if fighting is always an option. In many modern stories, that isn't true.
This is also not true. 4e does allow for the scenario where the PCs should not be expected to a win a fight. All that requires is a mixture of the use of higher level mobs, perhaps with the soldier, brute, or elite template.
A grenade is considered a "weapon" for purposes of training. If one is trained with it, one gains a "trained bonus to attack rolls" with it just like any other weapon. It does not have base damage dice (and as such cannot be used with class weapon powers). However, one can use it to make a special item granted at will attack so long as you have a grenade in your possession. This attack will be a ranged radius attack. If one is trained with the grenade, its damage dice depend on the characters level. If one is not trained with the grenade, it has base damage dice. This mechanic does not represent a character "making a grenade stronger" so much as a trained characters ability to "time the grenade throw" better, thus achieving a higher maximum potential damage with it.
The idea was proposed by MatthewSwift. Its probably the best idea I have heard for the Modern grenade.
By the way, an alternate version of stating out the grenade: Instead of having them stated as a high level alchemical item which imposes an XP penalty, why not stat them as a mixture of a weapon and an alchemical item.
A grenade is considered a "weapon" for purposes of training. If one is trained with it, one gains a "trained bonus to attack rolls" with it just like any other weapon. It does not have base damage dice (and as such cannot be used with class weapon powers). However, one can use it to make a special item granted at will attack so long as you have a grenade in your possession. This attack will be a ranged radius attack. If one is trained with the grenade, its damage dice depend on the characters level. If one is not trained with the grenade, it has base damage dice. This mechanic does not represent a character "making a grenade stronger" so much as a trained characters ability to "time the grenade throw" better, thus achieving a higher maximum potential damage with it.
The idea was proposed by MatthewSwift. Its probably the best idea I have heard for the Modern grenade.
That to me is one of the worst ideas for grenades I have seen. Character-based attack roll bonuses i can accept, but damage bonuses just don't make sense. Suppose it's a non-moving target? Anyone can time it perfectly then. Suppose the target can see it coming, he can dodge or brace for it better. Suppose the other creature has a high movement, does that allow him a reduction on that damage? There's so many speed/timing-based thinsg that could change that dynamic that it just doesn't make sense.
That to me is one of the worst ideas for grenades I have seen. Character-based attack roll bonuses i can accept, but damage bonuses just don't make sense. Suppose it's a non-moving target? Anyone can time it perfectly then. Suppose the target can see it coming, he can dodge or brace for it better. Suppose the other creature has a high movement, does that allow him a reduction on that damage? There's so many speed/timing-based thinsg that could change that dynamic that it just doesn't make sense.
Again, I don't know what to tell you, I just don't agree with you. I think it makes total sense. When playing Halo, my friend is awesome with his grenades. Whatever he throws them at, he pretty much seems to kill with one throw. I am not nearly as good. I still deal damage, but I tend not to get the grenade quite as close, and somehow I don't seem to kill my targets with a single throw. I just don't seem to time my grenades nearly as well. This doesn't just seem to be an issue of "hitting better." Its not that he hits and I don't. Its that he hits and does damage, I hit and do less. I think something like what I listed above would model that well.
As for a person "seeing it coming," and thus being able to dodge the attack, their defenses and feats already model that.
As for the unmoving object... I don't know. Some people are just better at placing the grenade in just the right place to take something out. Why can't your level help to represent this via a damage bonus?
Honestly, considering the generally abstract nature of d20 rules, I really don't see an issue here. I think this would be the most balanced/best method of stating out grenades.
But, as always, I am happy to agree to disagree.
But, me is not you, and you is not me. We don't have to see things the same way. Each to their own.
Like I said, we will have to agree to disagree. I love the way level in Saga grants a damage bonus. I love the way you do more damage with higher level powers in 4e. I think the same mechanic would work well for grenades.
But, me is not you, and you is not me. We don't have to see things the same way. Each to their own.
I have to admit that I liked the mechanic of adding a level-based damage bonus as well. It really made sense (to me at least) that a more experienced character would be deadlier with the same weapon than they were at first level.
Some of my PCs have prided themselves on being specialists at something, at having their turn for glory, but from what I read this doesn't happen in 4e because your specialist has a +10 in Repair to fix the truck before it gets run over by an oncoming train but everybody else has a +8 because well we gotta make sure everyone has a chance to fix the truck.
The onus is on the GM to plan encounters accordingly, if people are sitting out encounters, it is my opinion the GM is not performing their duty properly. Maybe the RepairGuy has three combat companions, so why not have soldiers attacking the truck, thus giving them something to do? Or an injured former truck driver to save?
It just SEEMS like 4e has watered everything down so the GM can open to page 57 of the Monster Manual, throw a bunch of that at the party, and yay everyone can participate I'm awesome.
Nothing is what it seems, though. I should probably go ahead and buy 4e first. ;)
EDIT:
I do have something to say on the "4e = WoW" comments. I think they are valid. I will tell you why.
It's not just WoW, this is an unfortunate consequence of WoW owning 50% of the MMORPG market share. On every MMO I have played (I've played 5, but I'm sure someone will bring up a scenario where it's different. Hold that thought, we're talking the norm here), you are a clone. The only thing unique about you is your username. You may be a Bard, but you are the 50,000th Bard on the server or more, and that is merely a consequence of MMO design (can't have 7 million classes for 7 million people, and only certain classes are useful anyway so people gravitate towards what is useful).
There is one thing about 4e that immediately turned me off. Hit Dice, or rather, lackthereof. That is a sign of what I call Clone Syndrome. A HUGE attraction to 3e and Modern and all that is, I am building a character that is unique. There may be others similar to me but it is nothing close to the magnitude of 120HP Barb at this level or 50HP Sor at this level.
So the point, if overexaggerated, is quite valid to me.
EDIT 2:
On that note, I think Modern 4e still has that potential. Sure things have changed, but a broad Power Tree characters could choose from could still confer that feeling of uniqueness. All is not lost, certainly. In the meantime, I will continue to use the functional and highly entertaining d20 Modern.
EDIT 3:
Hah, i didn't even address the thread topic. Well, hardly, and only in edits!
Okay, well, why can't 4E Modern classes use the Hero system, but a 4E-augmented one?
I see the attraction of everyone being able to participate in everything, but on the other hand, I feel opposed to it because that just isn't our it actually works in the world.
Honestly, I could care less how the real world works. What I care about most is that the game is fun to play. When a game is composed of a bunch of specialists, each who play their own mini game, and have their own mini time to shine, but otherwise sit out because they are not capable of participating, the game is not fun.
Some of my PCs have prided themselves on being specialists at something, at having their turn for glory, but from what I read this doesn't happen in 4e because your specialist has a +10 in Repair to fix the truck before it gets run over by an oncoming train but everybody else has a +8 because well we gotta make sure everyone has a chance to fix the truck.
That is not how 4e works. Not everyone "has a chance to fix the truck." There is a great deal of diversity when it comes to just how trained (or not) someone is in any given skill. At first level, my bard has a +13 to diplomacy. My rogue has a +1. During skill challenges, the "everyone's a specialist in their field" mechanic works. That's because skill challenges pretty much amount to everyone sitting around, talking, telling the DM what they want to try and do, and rolling skill checks. Not everyone needs to fix the truck, only the mechanic needs to be able to do that. But, the skill challenge isn't composed of a single skill check, or checks made by a single skill. While the mechanic is fixing the truck the face needs to keep the detective occupied. The cat burgler needs to pick the lock on the garage doors. The lookout needs to keep an eye out for patrols so the group does not get caught. Everyone participates equally. Thing is, this doesn't happen when "specialization" breaks the game down into who can participate in what mini games. The "skill challenge" and the "combat" are effectively two different mini games. If one person can contribute only to one mini game, and the other person only to the other, the result is that at any given time one player will not be participating, and any given player will not be participating half the time. This is not fun.
The onus is on the GM to plan encounters accordingly, if people are sitting out encounters, it is my opinion the GM is not performing their duty properly. Maybe the RepairGuy has three combat companions, so why not have soldiers attacking the truck, thus giving them something to do? Or an injured former truck driver to save?
The onus is on the GM to write a good story. That doesn't mean that there will be room to fit one particular specialists skill set in every given encounter. Specialists should be able to contribute outside of only one type of mini-game. Because, quite frankly, even if there are soldiers attacking the truck, there is a bit of a difference between saying "I sit back and roll my repair check every round" and actually being able to participate in a dynamic and tactical set of min-game mechanics.
The guys a "hero mechanic." I am sure a hero mechanic could pull out his tool box and jury-rig a make-shift explosive device to aid the group on the fly, perhaps even throwing it himself. That's the sort of McGuiver antics that hero-mechanics do. There is no reason they need to sit out and roll a repair check on the truck every round while the rest of the group has fun.
I do have something to say on the "4e = WoW" comments. I think they are valid. I will tell you why.
It's not just WoW, this is an unfortunate consequence of WoW owning 50% of the MMORPG market share. On every MMO I have played (I've played 5, but I'm sure someone will bring up a scenario where it's different. Hold that thought, we're talking the norm here), you are a clone. The only thing unique about you is your username. You may be a Bard, but you are the 50,000th Bard on the server or more, and that is merely a consequence of MMO design (can't have 7 million classes for 7 million people, and only certain classes are useful anyway so people gravitate towards what is useful).
There is one thing about 4e that immediately turned me off. Hit Dice, or rather, lackthereof. That is a sign of what I call Clone Syndrome. A HUGE attraction to 3e and Modern and all that is, I am building a character that is unique. There may be others similar to me but it is nothing close to the magnitude of 120HP Barb at this level or 50HP Sor at this level.
So the point, if overexaggerated, is quite valid to me.
No offense, but this is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard. Let me get this strait: you think that 4e is like an MMORPG because all the characters in it (who are of the same class) are the same? You think this because two characters of the same class and level will have the same hit points?
Except they won't. You add your Constitution to your starting hit points. So unless both the characters chose the same Constitution score as well, they will have different hit points.
And honestly, are you honestly trying to tell me you thought rolling hit dice was a fun mechanic? I really don't find it fun when two characters, who otherwise chose the exact same build, have drastically different hit points and thus effectiveness. And why? Not because one player made a better choice then the other. No. Because one player got unlucky and rolled a bunch of ones. I houseruled hit dice out of my games ever since 2e. Any time it came time for someone to roll hit dice, I always told the player to simply take the average.
And are you going to honestly try and argue that 4e, which offers characters a total of 17 different powers from their class, and 18 different feats, none of which they HAVE to take, all of which they get to choose from a huge list, offers less variation than an earlier edition of the system where you received only 7 feats endgame, and the vast majority of your powers gained from level are not chosen but rather forced upon you due to your choice of class? Because the system with more choice in powers and feats has a more static rate of hit point gain? Honestly?
I'm sorry, but I don't see anything valid about that point whatsoever. We will have to agree to disagree on that, because from where I am standing, from my personal and subjective perspective, you just told me that the sky is neon green with vibrant yellow and purple polka dots.
Honestly, I could care less how the real world works. What I care about most is that the game is fun to play. When a game is composed of a bunch of specialists, each who play their own mini game, and have their own mini time to shine, but otherwise sit out because they are not capable of participating, the game is not fun.
Like I said, poor encounter design. You are painting specialists acting within a group as these disjointed mini-game moments. I agree that, if people are sitting out, something is wrong. But for that I blame the GM first, system second.
And I retract the 4E = WoW comment, as you seem more knowledgable on the system's capabilities than I am.
News flash, though, nobody ignores Constitution. Everybody I have ever played d20 with puts similar amounts of points into it. Clones shall be generated.
If it's true there is even more character customization in 4E than in 3E, though, I stand corrected. This is opposite to what I have read, anywhere on these forums.
EDIT: Actually,
The onus is on the GM to write a good story. That doesn't mean that there will be room to fit one particular specialists skill set in every given encounter. Specialists should be able to contribute outside of only one type of mini-game. Because, quite frankly, even if there are soldiers attacking the truck, there is a bit of a difference between saying "I sit back and roll my repair check every round" and actually being able to participate in a dynamic and tactical set of min-game mechanics.
The guys a "hero mechanic." I am sure a hero mechanic could pull out his tool box and jury-rig a make-shift explosive device to aid the group on the fly, perhaps even throwing it himself. That's the sort of McGuiver antics that hero-mechanics do. There is no reason they need to sit out and roll a repair check on the truck every round while the rest of the group has fun.
This. I would like to point out since it seems to happen in EVERY argument is the obvious cleave between combat and non-combat. Granted I do it too, but there is NO class ANYWHERE that is pure non-combat. Every single class in d20 Modern, and every d20 system I've ever seen, gets better in combat with levels. Your argument is flawed because there is no forced separation of whatever "mini-games" you're talking about, the mechanic is also free to fire on guards if he wants.
As I think backstabbist may have said once, a 2d6 bullet hurts as much from a Smart Hero as it does from a Strong Hero. Unless every encounter you run in d20 Modern is against SWAT members with deflection force fields, then yeah, I guess even the hero librarian would have to sit that one out.
Like I said, poor encounter design. You are painting specialists acting within a group as these disjointed mini-game moments. I agree that, if people are sitting out, something is wrong. But for that I blame the GM first, system second.
And I disagree with you. The d20 system ALREADY transformed skill challenges (I use this term loosely, not only to describe the 4e hard coded mechanic, but also the use of complex situations that require skill checks to overcome in 3e) and combat into two different mini-games. To integrate these two mini-games, in every fight, in a manner that gives all characters at the table equal face time, and doesn't seem contrived and thus detrimental to the story, is very difficult. To fault GMs for not being able to perform this feat without difficulty is to fault someone for not being able to find a needle in a haystack.
News flash, though, nobody ignores Constitution. Everybody I have ever played d20 with puts similar amounts of points into it. Clones shall be generated.
1) Constitution is not as much of an "everybody needs me" stat in 4e as it was in 3e. Characters do, in fact, ignore Constitution in 4e.
2) Yes, if people choose the Constitution, and same class, and the same hit point increasing feats, they will have the same amount of hit points. And they should. How effective your character is should be based on your choices, not random chance. Even still, the characters will still not be clones, unless people actively try and take the exact same feats and powers. There are simply too many options in 4e for characters to create clones of each other unless that is their intention.
If it's true there is even more character customization in 4E than in 3E, though, I stand corrected. This is opposite to what I have read, anywhere on these forums.
Anywhere on these forums? Please, go to the 4E general forums, and create a thread entitled "does 4e offer lots of character customization options," and see if anyone except for a couple people attempting to troll your thread tells you no.
The only people who claim that 4e has less character options than 3e are either a) people who have never played the game b) people who are trolling the 4e forums in order to get a rise out of people or c) people who are intentionally ignoring every aspect of the game except for multiclassing. 4e offers a good deal more character customization than any 3e game ever did. The only other WotC product with a similar degree of character customization is Star Wars Saga edition.
The only thing 4e offers you less ability to do is multiclass. However, there is so much versatility and build options within a single class that 4e, even with its less open multiclassing system, still allows characters a good deal more versatility than 3e did. Open up its multiclassing options (which I think everyone who wants a 4e Modern also wants) and it will be the most versatile d20 product to date (in terms of character creation).
EDIT: Just added this.
This. I would like to point out since it seems to happen in EVERY argument is the obvious cleave between combat and non-combat. Granted I do it too, but there is NO class ANYWHERE that is pure non-combat. Every single class in d20 Modern, and every d20 system I've ever seen, gets better in combat with levels. Your argument is flawed because there is no forced separation of whatever "mini-games" you're talking about, the mechanic is also free to fire on guards if he wants.
You are absolutely right. There is no class anywhere that is pure non-combat. Non-combat classes don't actually exist in d20 games, which is why I have no desire to see them in a 4eModern game. I want a 4e Smart Hero that has science based area of effect powers that he can "jurry rig" on the fly. I want a 4e Charismatic Hero with talking based powers that allow them to daze or even dominate their foes. I want a well balanced 4e Modern game.
But that does not mean that my argument is flawed. It is not. There are mini-games. There is the skill mini game, and the combat mini game. The mechanics for resolving the two different types of encounters are not the same. I like the 4e Model of giving all characters mechanics to resolve both forms of mini-game, making all characters able to participate meaningfully (in a balanced manner) with both forms of mini-games. 3e tried to do this too. Every character had a BAB that increased. Every character had a Defense that increased (in some 3e based d20 games). Every character had saves that increased. You are correct. However, the disparity in balance between what characters could contribute to where was so drastic that the result was that encounters that were challenging to some players were impossible to others. As a result, since the cost for attempting to take part in such an activity and failing often came with the penalty of death, some characters were virtually forced to sit out during certain encounters. Sometimes it was better for the combat character to sit out and not participate in a skill based encounter. Sometimes it was better for a skill based character to sit out and not participate in combat. Again, this is not a fun mechanic.
But that does not mean that my argument is flawed. It is not. There are mini-games. There is the skill mini game, and the combat mini game. The mechanics for resolving the two different types of encounters are not the same. I like the 4e Model of giving all characters mechanics to resolve both forms of mini-game, making all characters able to participate meaningfully (in a balanced manner) with both forms of mini-games. 3e tried to do this too. Every character had a BAB that increased. Every character had a Defense that increased (in some 3e based d20 games). Every character had saves that increased. You are correct. However, the disparity in balance between what characters could contribute to where was so drastic that the result was that encounters that were challenging to some players were impossible to others. As a result, since the cost for attempting to take part in such an activity and failing often came with the penalty of death, some characters were virtually forced to sit out during certain encounters. Sometimes it was better for the combat character to sit out and not participate in a skill based encounter. Sometimes it was better for a skill based character to sit out and not participate in combat. Again, this is not a fun mechanic.
Okay, now I understand your use of the term mini-game. However, again, I do not believe they have to be as disjointed as you make them seem. After all, most if not all skill checks in Modern have a usage that is not full-round, allowing them to participate in both skill checks mini-game and combat simultaneously. I agree perhaps at higher levels those focusing solely in Fast/Strong will greatly surpass Smart/Dedicated, but, by this time, those classes have combat abilities that are highly effective (if requiring a little more strategy than aim firearm at opponent head and pull trigger), or they're resurrecting the dead!
I agree that it is the GM's job to make a good story, but correlating that with your own points, only if that story is fun and includes everyone. And this is absolutely possible under Modern, or really any system.
But alas, your personal experiences and my personal experiences are obviously going to branch off at points, and my group's preferences may not mirror your own (one of my players enjoy breaks from involvement, for instance, to go to the washroom or get a drink or read up on a rule).
I apologize for the 4E = WoW accusation, and pending further evaluation it has been upgraded to 4E = City of Villains. Don't worry, that's a relatively good thing.
Stupid 4e.
So, I was just trying to figure out where we are on the whole "classes" thing, can anybody help me out?
Mechanic: If try to fix the truck
Smart: I keep a look out
GM "Lookout"? Who are...
Face: I distract the Detective
GM:WHAT! What 'detective'? Its a broken truck on the...
Tough: I try to intimidate him
GM: OMG are you guys smokin crack?
Intimidate the truck? Who are you talking about? And you Smart, "lookout" for who, you are on the side of the road, dont bother rolling cause you can see bunches of cars wizzing by...... And what the heck are you Face talking about with some 'Detective?" There aint no cops, it is just a broken truck! You guys need to...
SlickWilly: I pick the lock
GM: ITS YOUR OWN TRUCK for cryin out loud, it aint locked and YOU HAVE THE KEYS!!!
NOW! All of you sit down and shut up while the Mechanic fixes the truck..... no, you know what... Fine, you all try just what you said... Face, you Failed to distract the Detective (you couldnt succeed, cause there aint a guy there to succeed against). Tough, you fail to intimidate the truck. SlickWilly, you fial to pick the lock that wasnt locked.... you have 3 Failures in this 4:2 simple task of fixking the truck, Mechanic, no matter what you roll, the Fix Truck Encounter is a failure so you might as well just call a tow truck.
I still don't see why you are championing the skill challenge mechanic as such a great way to engage every player in the non-combat stuff. I've alread posted a thorogh rebuttal of why skill challenges as written are thoroughly broken.
I'm sorry. I have seen no such post. Would you care to provide a link? And, while some of the specifics of the numbers used on the table for skill challenges need work, the general mechanic works amazingly well. I know, because I have seen them in play, and used them myself. They work, and they work well... though when one designs them it requires a lot more intuitive work and a lot less following the exact numbers layed out in the DMG. The mechanic still requires some fine tuning on the part of WotC. Unfortunately, the RAW numbers were botched, and do require some errata. I've got a link in my signature to the numbers I use.
GM: You're driving to the warehouse and the truck stalls out.
Mechanic: If try to fix the truck
Smart: I keep a look out
GM "Lookout"? Who are...
Face: I distract the Detective
GM:WHAT! What 'detective'? Its a broken truck on the...
Tough: I try to intimidate him
GM: OMG are you guys smokin crack?
Intimidate the truck? Who are you talking about? And you Smart, "lookout" for who, you are on the side of the road, dont bother rolling cause you can see bunches of cars wizzing by...... And what the heck are you Face talking about with some 'Detective?" There aint no cops, it is just a broken truck! You guys need to...
SlickWilly: I pick the lock
GM: ITS YOUR OWN TRUCK for cryin out loud, it aint locked and YOU HAVE THE KEYS!!!
NOW! All of you sit down and shut up while the Mechanic fixes the truck..... no, you know what... Fine, you all try just what you said... Face, you Failed to distract the Detective (you couldnt succeed, cause there aint a guy there to succeed against). Tough, you fail to intimidate the truck. SlickWilly, you fial to pick the lock that wasnt locked.... you have 3 Failures in this 4:2 simple task of fixking the truck, Mechanic, no matter what you roll, the Fix Truck Encounter is a failure so you might as well just call a tow truck.
Was there a point to this post other then wasting space? If the GM is not running a skill challenge, and only calling for a skill check, then he is not running a skill challenge and only calling for a single skill check. End of story. Fixing a truck is not a skill challenge. Its not something that lasts a prolonged period of time. Its not something that requires more than a single die roll. Its not something that lasts a long enough period of time, or is mechanically intensive enough, that the game needs to include everyone to keep the entire table entertained. The entire experience should last all of a sentence or two and a single die roll.
If combat took all of 5 minutes or less and a single die roll it wouldn't matter if not everyone is good at it. However, combat in the d20 system is a fairly prolonged and intensive aspect of the game. When it happens, it tends to last a little while. The same is true of skill challenges. Unlike a single skill check, skill challenges and combat are intensive enough that all characters must be included in their design for a game to (simultaneously) include all party members. I'm not interested in running another game where one of my players is pretty much forced to sit out for more than 15 minutes at a time, regularly, or I am forced to include very contrived scenario's (breaking the suspension of disbelief in a credible narrative) in order to include them.
I'm sorry. I have seen no such post. Would you care to provide a link? And, while some of the specifics of the numbers used on the table for skill challenges need work, the general mechanic works amazingly well. I know, because I have seen them in play, and used them myself. They work, and they work well... though when one designs them it requires a lot more intuitive work and a lot less following the exact numbers layed out in the DMG. The mechanic still requires some fine tuning on the part of WotC. Unfortunately, the RAW numbers were botched, and do require some errata. I've got a link in my signature to the numbers I use.
http://www.thealexandrian.net/archive/archive2008-05.html#20080518 contains pretty much all of it.
The mathematics of skill challenges actively discourages players from considering sub-optimal but creative solutions, break if you just decide to fly over a wall instead of rolling climb checks, and creating unbelievable (as in "this feels stupid" not "wow cool") situations where a wall becomes easier or harder to climb if you chat to a guard first.
I didn't even touch on the RAW numbers being a bit off-key. That, at least, could be fixed. the other issues are inherent to the skill challenge system.
http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/playtesting-4th.html has some more thoughts on the subject.
Disclaimer: I didn't write those articles, but i do agree with almost every point they make.
The mathematics of skill challenges does not actively discourage players from considering creative solutions. If a solution is creative, it should never be sub-optimal. Creative ideas should, more often then not, result in lower skill check DCs. The purpose of a DM is to reward (intelligent) creativity, and there is nothing in the skill challenge mechanics that stops a DM from doing just that.
If you decide to use a spell to fly over a wall instead of rolling climb checks a skill challenge does not break. The part of the skill challenge that revolves around climbing is simply, and automatically, considered to be a success with no skill checks rolled. Part of the purpose of rituals is to bypass aspects of a skill challenge, via magic, at the cost of gold. Likewise, clever use of utility powers will do the same thing (at the cost of an expended power).
And the situation where "the wall became easier or harder to climb if you chat to a guard first" was fully valid, and made me roll my eyes at the author. If you make a successful diplomacy check in order to keep the guards attention off the climber, then yes, the climbers job does become easier. He no longer has as much stress to contend with, because the guard is distracted and thus less likely to catch the climber and put an end to the attempt to climb the wall unnoticed. Its not that "climbing the wall" became an easier task, its that "climbing the wall without alerting the guards and putting an end to the attempt to climb over the wall undetected just became easier, and thus requires less successful climb checks."
Sorry Rhialto, but I didn't agree with a word of what I just read, and I don't agree with your assessment of skill challenges. I have watched them in action, and they work, and work well. That doesn't mean its not possible for a DM to botch using them... but a DM can also throw a level 30 mob against a group of level 1 PCs. That doesn't mean that he is supposed to, or that the combat mechanics don't work because that particular encounter doesn't work.
The only problem with the skill challenge mechanics is some of the math used in their creation. Some of that needs some errata.
I just read that thread, and your complaints, and they are (in my opinion) a load of bullocks.
I stopped reading here.
No need to swear.
Welcome to my ignore list.
I do, however, still disagree with your assessment of skill challenges. I think that the majority of what I read in the site you linked me to was a load of bologna. It did not, to me, indicate that skill challenges are broken. It did, to me, indicate that the author did not know how to properly use skill challenges, and did not understand what skill challenges are supposed to represent.
From D&D forum «...As the current hybrid classes concept is a playtest article, I would suggest that playtesting and offering our specific feedback is a good idea. What they have given us thus far is an idea with flesh. But it needs tested, tried, and refined...»
From D&D website «...This month in Dragon, we look at building hybrid characters, new familiars, and an arcane academy; here now are a full set of the illustrations from Dragon 374!...»
I think a more open/less restrictive way of taking powers from other classes, all other classes, is what Modern needs. A Modern character should be able to mix and match powers for any of the six Modern classes.
That is not how 4e works. Not everyone "has a chance to fix the truck." There is a great deal of diversity when it comes to just how trained (or not) someone is in any given skill. At first level, my bard has a +13 to diplomacy. My rogue has a +1. During skill challenges, the "everyone's a specialist in their field" mechanic works. That's because skill challenges pretty much amount to everyone sitting around, talking, telling the DM what they want to try and do, and rolling skill checks. Not everyone needs to fix the truck, only the mechanic needs to be able to do that. But, the skill challenge isn't composed of a single skill check, or checks made by a single skill. While the mechanic is fixing the truck the face needs to keep the detective occupied. The cat burgler needs to pick the lock on the garage doors. The lookout needs to keep an eye out for patrols so the group does not get caught. Everyone participates equally. Thing is, this doesn't happen when "specialization" breaks the game down into who can participate in what mini games.
Was there a point to this post other then wasting space? If the GM is not running a skill challenge, and only calling for a skill check, then he is not running a skill challenge and only calling for a single skill check. End of story. Fixing a truck is not a skill challenge. Its not something that lasts a prolonged period of time. Its not something that requires more than a single die roll. Its not something that lasts a long enough period of time, or is mechanically intensive enough, that the game needs to include everyone to keep the entire table entertained. The entire experience should last all of a sentence or two and a single die roll.
Your right Dave, Dave was wrong.
Make up your mind.
First you have a need to disagree with a guy talking about not all chars can fix trucks equally, and you have to spin the example into some freakish application of your agenda to show how all players get to participate equally.
Then you feel like you ned to disagree with me
for pointing out the absurdity of your need to turn a simple Mehcanics Fix Trucks Better example into a skill challenge just for the sake of making it a skill challenge.
Your are right, it never should have been a skill challenge,
but you made it one to twist the guys example into something that fits your agenda.
We get it Dave, you like 4e.
You dont have to disagree with everyone here, including yourself, to spin its flaws into good PR
Yea. Its an interesting system. I it will do wonders for D&D, but its not what is needed to capture the feel of Modern. Does a great job of capturing the feel of 2e multiclassing though!
I think a more open/less restrictive way of taking powers from other classes, all other classes, is what Modern needs. A Modern character should be able to mix and match powers for any of the six Modern classes.
Don't forget that Modern will benefit from this new hybrid-class system. I'm convinced the mistakes they make with the D&D version will be ironed out in the Modern version... and it will probably be more open than for D&D.
Are you advocating «cherry picking» of powers? At first glance this seems to open the door to even worse abuse than 3.x multiclassing. D20 is a class based system. WotC will never go that far...IMHO
Your right Dave, Dave was wrong.
No, sorry, as usual it is backstabbist that IS wrong.
Make up your mind.
My mind was made up from the start. Learn to read. The two quotes that you gave from me are not antithetical to each other.
First you have a need to disagree with a guy talking about not all chars can fix trucks equally, and you have to spin the example into some freakish application of your agenda to show how all players get to participate equally.
From the start the discussion between me and Azisien was related to equal participation. His claim was that 4e, in order to create equal participation, gave everyone the same chance to use any given skill. This is false. Its as false as saying any character has the same chance to hit with the same weapon, or the same power. Characters in 4e do not have the same chance to use any given skill. The statement is false (empirically so). As I pointed out, my first level bard has a +13 to hit with Diplomacy, my rogue has a +1. One of them is obviously superior at performing Diplomacy skill checks, and will always be so.
In order to create equal participation in the skill system not all characters require equal ability in individual skill checks. The skill system is primarily employed via the skill challenge system. In a skill challenge, not all characters need to be equally capable in the SAME skill to gain equal face time and participation. In order to create equal participation in skill challenges, 4e did not homogenize just how trained someone is/can be in a skill. There is a vast amount of diversity in just how trained someone will be at a skill (achieved via a combination of feat, race, class, and ability bonuses).
As for the need to perform one single skill check, the process is so short, and it takes up so little game time, that not every character needs to participate equally in that process. The process does not last long enough that it forces other players to doze off and go do something else while one single character plays "the mini game of fixing the truck." Its one or two sentences and a single die roll. It takes a couple of seconds. A minute at most. It is not a process that steals face time from the rest of the group for a period of time that is long enough for the rest of the group to justifiably grow bored. It is not the same as combat, which takes 15+ minutes per encounter.
Then you feel like you ned to disagree with me
for pointing out the absurdity of your need to turn a simple Mehcanics Fix Trucks Better example into a skill challenge just for the sake of making it a skill challenge.
There is nothing absurd about my statements. What is absurd is your participation in a thread entitled "4e Modern: Classes." If you have nothing positive to post on the thread, don't participate on it at all.
Your are right, it never should have been a skill challenge,
but you made it one to twist the guys example into something that fits your agenda.
Fixing a truck is either part of a skill challenge, which is composed of multiple different skill checks, which thus gives equal face time to all players, or a single skill check, which lasts so brief a period of time that it does not need to give all players equal face time in order to keep all players engaged. Not all characters would be equally good at fixing a truck. This is fact, whether it fits my agenda or not. So, lets see whose agenda is productive to the purpose of this thread: my agenda is to discus how 4E can be used to create Modern classes in a productive manner, and to put a stop to people who make statements that amount to "4e would not work for a Modern game" in this thread. Your agenda seems to be to say how 4E is awful and can't be used to create a Modern game. My agenda fits with the purpose of this thread. I have a productive reason to be here. Why are you here again? Go visit one of your pro 3e threads and stop wasting space on this one.
We get it Dave, you like 4e.
You dont have to disagree with everyone here, including yourself, to spin its flaws into good PR
I have not contradicted myself. And I will disagree with anyone who makes the claim that 4e would make poor Modern classes on this thread, because that's not the primary positive/productive purpose of this thread. The primary/productive purpose of this thread is to:
figure out exactly how we want classes to work in 4E Modern... do we just use D&D classes and add modern equipment? or do we make modern equivalents of the D&D classes? or do we make 4E versions of the basic classes and turn Advanced Classes into Paragon Paths? and what do we do about the Epic Tier?
Any thoughts?
If you are not going to be productive to that stated aim, get lost. If your only purpose is to explain why you don't think 4e would work well for a Modern game you have no reason to be here.
Don't forget that Modern will benefit from this new hybrid-class system. I'm convinced the mistakes they make with the D&D version will be ironed out in the Modern version... and it will probably be more open than for D&D.
I have read the hybrid class system. Its a nice system. I could see it being used as a way for Modern characters to gain a mix of class abilities (not powers) from two different Modern classes. But it will never capture the "open multiclass feel" of d20 Modern. Modern was about organic open multiclass growth. The hybrid class system forces you to pick two classes at level one, and then transforms your character into a mix of those two classes form level one. It feels very much like the multiclassing of 2e, but translated into 4e mechanics.
Are you advocating «cherry picking» of powers? At first glance this seems to open the door to even worse abuse than 3.x multiclassing. D20 is a class based system. WotC will never go that far...IMHO
I guess I sort of am advocating the "cherry picking" of powers. But, 4e has already proved that this is not a problem. The bard can do just this. I don't think anyone would claim that the bard is broken. And, Modern would be able to make use of the mechanic (in a balanced way) with less difficulty than D&D. Unlike D&D, which releases a new set of classes every year, my vision of Modern would have only six classes (ever): Strong, Fast, Tough, Smart, Charismatic, and Dedicated. With each class primarily working off one of six stats, cherry picking powers from too broad a group of classes will be tough. It will force you to lower your highest attack stats (in order to balance out a group of attack stats) which will already, theoretically, help to balance the characters overall power. Your stat is one of the primary locations from which you gain your much needed bonus to hit.
However, some other checks and balances may need to be put in place. For example, maybe a character should spend a feat every time they take a power outside of their own class, or something along those lines.
http://www.thealexandrian.net/archive/archive2008-05.html#20080518 contains pretty much all of it.
The mathematics of skill challenges actively discourages players from considering sub-optimal but creative solutions, break if you just decide to fly over a wall instead of rolling climb checks, and creating unbelievable (as in "this feels stupid" not "wow cool") situations where a wall becomes easier or harder to climb if you chat to a guard first.
I didn't even touch on the RAW numbers being a bit off-key. That, at least, could be fixed. the other issues are inherent to the skill challenge system.
http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/playtesting-4th.html has some more thoughts on the subject.
Disclaimer: I didn't write those articles, but i do agree with almost every point they make.
I read the first link but not the second.
The articles in the first link do make at least one significant mistake that I'm aware of; in the discussion of failing the Insight check to find out that Intimidate checks result in an automatic failure. The failure of the Insight check does not count as one of the failures for the challenge. It is simply a failure to learn that Intimidate is auto-fail. In the case of the 4/2 challenge, failing the Insight check then attempting to Intimidate will only result in one of the 2 failures required to fail the challenge.
It should also be noted that failing a skill challenge will not result in auto-failing the adventure goals. The chapter about skill challenge design states that things should be more difficult if the challenge fails, but that the adventure should never require success at a skill challenge.
I dunno picking tons of abilities from a power pool sounds really awesome for a 4E Modern. It's like multiclassing, but without the classes. After all, what ARE classes? Just conglomerates of abilities. Now I do like the Hero system, couldn't that stay intact for 4E?
Talking out of my butt mostly, still need to pick up the 4E books.
Hey guys I was just kidding about earlier. Geez look at the fuss I cause. ;)
I dunno picking tons of abilities from a power pool sounds really awesome for a 4E Modern. It's like multiclassing, but without the classes. After all, what ARE classes? Just conglomerates of abilities. Now I do like the Hero system, couldn't that stay intact for 4E?
Talking out of my butt mostly, still need to pick up the 4E books.
WotC «seems» to be moving in the right direction with 4E. The multiclass system is still at the playtest level. I suggest everyone interest in the future of Modern should get their hands on the specifics, playtest it, and send them «constructive comments». THEY ARE GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THE DESIGNERS...don't waste it ! [/preaching] ;)
I dunno picking tons of abilities from a power pool sounds really awesome for a 4E Modern. It's like multiclassing, but without the classes. After all, what ARE classes? Just conglomerates of abilities. Now I do like the Hero system, couldn't that stay intact for 4E?
Like I said, I certainly want to keep the Hero system in tact. My vision was that, just like 4e class powers, each "Hero Class" power in a 4E Modern would be based on one of the six stats. Strong hero stats add Strength to attack/damage. Fast heroes add Dex. Charismatic heroes add charisma. And so and so forth. Some variation might exist. For example, Tough hero powers would probably use Strength for attack/damage, but would have powerful secondary self-healing and self-buffing capabilities based off Constitution. Some charismatic "weapon powers" would probably be based off Dexterity for a bonus to hit/damage. However, the attack itself would be weak. The real benefit of the power would be the fact that it gives an ally a free action of some sort with a Bonus to the action equal to the Charismatic heroes Charisma modifier. Thus, the actual "attack" of the power is pretty much a throw away. What it would actually be about is using your Charisma to lead your allies, allowing them to make powerful attacks with significant bonuses granted by you. So yes, I think the Hero system both can, and should, be kept in tact for a 4E Modern. In my vision, the "class roles" break up as follows:
Tough Hero: Defender with an emphasis on self healing and self buffing. Like all defenders, these guys would definitely get the ability to mark (pick targets, and force those targets to attack the Tough Hero, or else take a -2 penalty to attack, and probably provoke an opportunity attack from the Tough Hero). Basically, this guy will be the guy who stops opponents from attacking the group, and attempts to force them to attack him.
Strong Hero: Striker with a combination of high damage melee weapon/heavy thrown weapon attacks, and almost "controller" flavored (but lower damage) area of effect ranged weapon attacks that require "heavy fully automatic weapons." Think stuff like heavy machine guns.
Fast Hero: A Striker with a combination of high damage single attack/single target sniper attacks (with lots of status effect inducing secondary effects on those powers), and double/tap/duel wielding pistol and/or light blade/light thrown weapon attack powers.
Smart Hero: A controller with "on the fly" area of effect powers that are not based off weapons, but rather are based off using a "science kit" to jury rig effects. This would be the "mix two chemicals and then throw the vial" and "set explosive traps" class. It would have lots of lasting area of effects that would, in effect, shape a battlefield.
Charismatic Hero: A leader with a combination of non-weapon no damage based effects that inflict status effects against a single target, or a small close burst centered on the hero, and some "leading troops" style weapon powers. The non-weapon status effect powers would deal effects like "dazed," "dominated," etc. Perhaps some effects would instead allow the charismatic hero to move enemies (basically scaring them into running off a short distance and the like), perhaps in combination with the above listed effects. The weapon powers would allow the Charismatic Hero to make an attack that is pretty much a throw-away attack, but would then allow the Charismatic Hero to choose an ally who could in fact make a powerful attack with significant bonuses granted from their Charisma. Unlike the 4E D&D leaders I don't think Charismatic Hero's should gain any healing abilities. No "warlord healing word" for example. Instead, I think the Charismatic Hero should have lots of "Temporary Hit Point" granting powers/abilities, with the temporary hit points being granted based on their Charisma modifier. Think of it as inspiration, but without the ability to actually heal someones wounds (just the ability to inspire them to push their body beyond their normal bounds for short periods of time).
Dedicated Hero: The dedicated hero would be a leader with lots of healing abilities (that require the use of a surgery kit), and buffing abilities. I'm not sure exactly what sort of attack powers they should get. Probably lots of buffing abilities. So, pretty much, these guys would be sort of like the Tough Hero, but instead of self-buffing and self-healing, they would have effects to buff and heal their allies. I don't know how exactly these effects should be mixed in with attack powers, but I am sure someone can think of something clever and neat.
Likewise, each class should get a full list of non-combat abilities based on boosting skills that use their stat.
WotC «seems» to be moving in the right direction with 4E. The multiclass system is still at the playtest level. I suggest everyone interest in the future of Modern should get their hands on the specifics, playtest it, and send them «constructive comments». THEY ARE GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THE DESIGNERS...don't waste it ! [/preaching] ;)
Honestly, I really think that the multiclassing system currently being tested for 4E is not a great mechanic for Modern. Or rather, its not the best "multiclassing mechanic" for Modern. At best, I think it will be a neat way for a character to mix some of the starting abilities from two classes. I think the mechanic that will really capture Modern style character building would be a common pool of abilities. Pretty much, any class can pick powers from any class in Modern. However, your choice of class will decide your starting class granted abilities (which one will not be able to gain except by choosing a starting class), your hit points gained per level, and your class based defense bonuses. After that you can "multiclass" into any other class by picking that classes powers.
You know, honestly, by this point in time I have enough ideas for how a 4E Modern should look that once Amathyst does some leg work for me, I might just put out a homebrew list of classes and class powers. But I need Amathyst to do the leg work for me to start me off. Building stuff from scratch is just too much work for me these days, unless someone is paying me. :P
I dunno picking tons of abilities from a power pool sounds really awesome for a 4E Modern. It's like multiclassing, but without the classes. After all, what ARE classes? Just conglomerates of abilities.
Why even bother having more than one class for Modern v2 with 4e influence
Its not 'classless' syetem, there is just 1 class ;)
GM says which HP method to use this campaign (Rolled/Fixed/Frontloaded/Backloaded)
You pick a couple 'abilities' when you start the character,
each level you pick a new power you want to use in encounters (combat/skillchallenge)
each level you get a few Skill Points to define where you choose to put yourt expertise,
and the occasional Feat or what not as you level up
easy-peasy introduction of 'powers' style of play into the Modern franchise
What could balance the classes more than having just one class with nothing to be unbalanced to? Each & every character has the same options availible to them, nothing to unbalance one from another:
Which PCs have the option to be really combat powerful? All of them
Which PCs can choose to not be really combat powerful? Same group: ALL
If a player choose to put themself out of the Sneak by wearing StrobeLightArmor that imparts -2Dazzle on all that attack him... well, that is the players choice to give up sneakitude for more combat.... just as the sneakyguy that chooses to not wear realkly good combat armor cause he wants the sneaky benefits of Black Pajamas....
HIS CHOICE to give up combat ability (less protection, easier to get hit & killed)
to gain noncombat benefit (more sneakitude outside of combat)
Which chars get to make those choices? All
Which chars get access to UberCombat power tree? All
Which chars get access to Healing power tree (or spells): All, just make that choice at any level to start with some simple casting: 1st or 5th or 18th level guy starts dabbling in tier1 Healing by choosing the entrylevel Healing power (and the tree nature of power prerequisites keep things from getting abused)
Not 'multiclassing', but Omniclassing Modern v2 with 4e style AEDaily powers
That is the only 4e modern class we need
Why even bother having more than one class for Modern v2 with 4e influence
Its not 'classless' syetem, there is just 1 class ;)
Not 'multiclassing', but Omniclassing Modern v2 with 4e style AEDaily powers
That is the only 4e modern class we need
Oh boy here we go again .... Collectively my gaming group as logged a total of 600 hours game play with 4E since it came out. OUR EXPERIENCE of the game is completely at opposite ends with your affirmation.... All the classes have a distinct flavor to them. 4E is not perfect but it has many qualities.
Your perception of 4E is purely intellectual and I suspect just for counter-arguements sake... All of a sudden, you deride the fact that WoTC is finally looking into multiclassing. Its been one of your HIGH RIDDING PONIES these past few weeks. Now that they've pulled it out from under you, you turn around and lash out against an effort to adress a valid issue YOU raised up convincinly on these boards...
Collectively my gaming group as logged a total of 600 hours game play with 4E since it came out. OUR EXPERIENCE of the game is completely at opposite ends with your affirmation.... All the classes have a distinct flavor to them. 4E is not perfect but it has many qualities
sure its not perfect,
that is why we pluck out the stuff we can use for modern and toss the rest in the trashcan
"All the classes have a distinct flavor to them"
and that flavor is represented as Combat=Shrimp, and all the distinct flavors span the recipe book of ForrestGumps friend Bubba.
You say all the classes have a distinct flavor,
yet all those flavors (and WAY MORE) can be achieved by simply choosing the abilities and powers to match those flavors.
Why would anyone give up HP for ability or skills?
Unless they are choosing to not take Fighter but instead take Rogue.
But, we all know when I recommend the ability for guys to be able to trade combat ability for noncombat ability by classes the 4e Fantasy Fightgame crowd has a fit
... so do they have a fit that Rogues choose to wear black pajamas instead of Armor and choose to trade away HP for noncombat ability/skills?
"All of a sudden.."
Nope
All of a sudden somebody said
"After all, what ARE classes? Just conglomerates of abilities."
and out of the blue I ran with an idea off THEIR comment.
I'm still cool with Modern free multiclassing of combat and noncombat classes.
Besides, if one listened to what Dave had been spouting, D&D was already configuerd for easy multiclassing....... unless it really wasnt, that it had penalties and feat fines& tarrifs paid to multiclass... but that would mean CD was just saying anything it takes to disagree with me on basic stuff... like when I said Modern has free multiclassing and 4e FantasyFightgame doesnt have free multiclassing.
Whether or not the 4e FantasyFightGame gets its act together and embraces Multiclassing
that has no bearing on this Modern forum brainstorming 4e type class for Modern.... we are not a D&D4e forum talking about some 4eFightgame Splatbook, we are the Modern game that is not the D&D game... we can take what we want from 4e and kick the other 90% to the curb
How is it that a D&D Rogue has more skills than the Fighter?
Is that fair, that it gets more skills and is equal in combat,
or is it actually setup that is has a wee bit less Combat prowess but gets more skills.
One or the other:
Either Rogue has all the combat ability of Fighter PLUS more skills (a plain better class),
or Rogue got more skills but had to GIVE SOMETHING UP to get them.
Which is it?
and why cant I say classes should be able trade off combat for noncombat and vice versa,
if they already do
One or the other:
Either Rogue has all the combat ability of Fighter PLUS more skills (a plain better class),
or Rogue got more skills but had to GIVE SOMETHING UP to get them.
Which is it?
and why cant I say classes should be able trade off combat for noncombat and vice versa,
if they already do
The rogue has different combat abilities than a fighter. The rogue deals out more damage, while the fighter assures that the rogue doesn't have to take any himself.
The fighter is proficient with all armor through scale and all shields, along with 32 (in the Player's Handbook) weapons. It also has 15 hit points with 6/level and 9 healing surges per day. Skill total: 3
The rogue is proficient with cloth and leather armor, no shields, and 5 (in the Player's Handbook) weapons. It also has 12 hit points with 5/level and 6 healing surges per day. Skill total: 6
So for three extra the rogue gives up 3 armors, 2 shields, 27 weapons, 3 hp at first level, and 1 every level thereafter, and 3 healing surges per day.
This doesn't hurt the rogues combat prowess though, because he isn't a glass cannon, he is a solid attacker, one that can pull out tremendous damage consistently and take several hits before he falls.
The fighter needs all the "advantages" he has to fulfill his role as a meat shield (except, possibly, the weapons).
4e has a non-combat system that depends on both the DM and the players. The social aspect relies more on roleplaying than on dice rolls, and the technical aspect allows character's to be well-rounded or specialized, as the player chooses.
Finally, while I'm not a DDI subscriber, my understanding is that the Hybrid Class option is a well built multi-class mechanic for D&D.
folks are telling us all the classes are balanced for their usefulness for combat,
fighters are useful in combat as defenders and rogues are useful in combat as strikers.
great, they are balanced for combat
now, given the classes are balanced in regards to combat,
why are they imbalanced in regards to noncombat?
unless, as you say, the rogue actually did have to give up some potency in combat for more potency outside of combat (more skill picks)
Does taking Rogue class make one ever so slightly less combatty but perform better outside of combat (more skills)?
Or is Rogue just a plain better class, that it get more skills without giving up any potency in combat and stays combat balanced to Fighters
(combat balanced & noncombat better = better)
well,
folks are telling us all the classes are balanced for their usefulness for combat,
fighters are useful in combat as defenders and rogues are useful in combat as strikers.
great, they are balanced for combat
now, given the classes are balanced in regards to combat,
why are they imbalanced in regards to noncombat?
unless, as you say, the rogue actually did have to give up some potency in combat for more potency outside of combat (more skill picks)
Does taking Rogue class make one ever so slightly less combatty but perform better outside of combat (more skills)?
Or is Rogue just a plain better class, that it get more skills without giving up any potency in combat and stays combat balanced to Fighters
(combat balanced & noncombat better = better)
This is, unfortunately, one of the areas where I have beef with 4e. They pretty much got everything perfectly balanced (in and out of combat) until one considered utility powers. Some classes get a plethora of utility powers that are effective in non-combat scenarios. Some get none. The fighter's utility powers are all pretty much combat oriented. This forces them to be slightly better at combat then a character who chooses non-combat oriented utility powers. The rogue or wizard, however, get plenty of amazing non-combat utility powers. Thus, a rogue or wizard who chooses as many non-combat utility powers as they can will pretty much be a little better at non-combat situations then the fighter. They can also, however, pick primarily combat oriented utility powers. This gives them a little more option in terms of their utility. Its a minor imbalance, as its not so much individual characters that will end up more powerful than other characters, but rather a few classes which has slightly more or slightly less types of options, but its my biggest beefs with 4e. All classes should have equal opportunity to pick combat/non-combat powers. They should just get different powers. For example, the fighter should have gotten a host of athletics based utility powers. He didn't.
Can't win 'em all.
This is, unfortunately, one of the areas where I have beef with 4e. They pretty much got everything perfectly balanced (in and out of combat) until one considered utility powers. Some classes get a plethora of utility powers that are effective in non-combat scenarios. Some get none. The fighter's utility powers are all pretty much combat oriented. This forces them to be slightly better at combat then a character who chooses non-combat oriented utility powers. The rogue or wizard, however, get plenty of amazing non-combat utility powers. Thus, a rogue or wizard who chooses as many non-combat utility powers as they can will pretty much be a little better at non-combat situations then the fighter. They can also, however, pick primarily combat oriented utility powers. This gives them a little more option in terms of their utility. Its a minor imbalance, as its not so much individual characters that will end up more powerful than other characters, but rather a few classes which has slightly more or slightly less types of options, but its my biggest beefs with 4e. All classes should have equal opportunity to pick combat/non-combat powers. They should just get different powers. For example, the fighter should have gotten a host of athletics based utility powers. He didn't.
Can't win 'em all.
Agreed. Below is a sample of some of the utility powers I would love to have seen for the fighter.
Busting Loose: A power that gives the fighter a bonus to Strength checks to burst bonds or break in doors.
Tactical Throw: The fighter foregoes any movement that round, except for shifting, to grant half his move speed as a bonus to an adjacent ally's jump check. (This certainly has combat implications, but I was considering it more for the purpose of helping a weak character get across pits and other environmental challenges)
Powerlifting: The fighter gets a bonus to Strength checks made to raise portcullises and has their carrying load increased while swiming or climbing. (I am imagining this power being used to rescue a drowning swimmer or to haul a couple of bad climbers up the side of a cliff face).
Fighter's Carry: The fighter can carry one character, of equal or lesser size, without reducing his speed. This assumes the carried person is unconscious or otherwise non-fidgety. (This would be good for rescuing someone from a burning or collapsing building, but it could also be used to pick up an ally and retreat from a losing battle).