D&D 4E [Continuation 4e] - a manifesto

[Ferghis]

At-Will powers - unified by power-source, some classes get unique additions
Encounter Powers - Unique to class, but many scale with level
Daily Powers - Unique to class

Unifying just at-wills might be a nice first step, but it would be better to move encounter powers and some dailies into "common" lists. Without a thorough review, I imagine that most could be indeed lumped by role and power source. I think some would be heartbroken over some of the more stereotypical powers for a certain class, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. More difficult would be to decide which role a given power belongs to.

Disruptive Strike, for example, is a Ranger (striker) power, that, for me, works very well for both defenders (since it debuffs enemy attacks) and leaders (reducing enemy damage is about as good as healing).

Now, I do not know about you guys, but I loved how Essentials/Psionics handled encounter powers, by just upgrading at-wills. What do you guys think about this?

I think they're excellent in theory (the Battlemind has some problems), but, sadly, they do not easily integrate with other classes powers. Since we only have three lists of such powers, each for a different role. This makes them fragmented within the proposition of unifying power lists.

 

[ggroy]

In the case of unified generic at-wills, one could ask how each role and power source would modify such generic at-wills.

For example, a striker role could modify the generic at-will with an addition damage (ie. such as hunter's quarry for the ranger, etc ...).


More generally, one can start defining generic at-wills which do damage as:

1 - melee attack on a single target
2 - range attack on a single target
3 - burst area attack
4 - blast area attack
5 - ranged area attack

3 to 5 would probably be more appropriate for spellcasters as generic at-wills, than melee type characters.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Also, why not have a unified power/spell list? Another major problem with 4e is ability score inflexability. I want to have a swashbucking warlord with a rapier and light armor, and yet none of the warlord powers grant me this. I want to run a bow-wielding cleric as well, but the warpriest strikes are all melee only.

1: High int warlord with a rapier (martial weapon), buckler and hide armour. At will Brash Assault and encounters including Provoke Overextension. Perfectly valid RAW.

2: There are bow-cleric options in some Dragon magazine somewhere - I forget which one.

(Sorry - I just enjoy figuring out how to do things).

A friend (who might post here) has stolen the idea of a "stake" die from another game. The DM places a die on the table at the beginning of each encounter.

Interesting - I thought at first you were talking about the 13th Age Escalation dice - adds to PC to hit rolls and starts at 1 and goes up once per round. A couple of ways of tweaking it, and it makes PCs want to save big powers.

[quoteIs this just for the sake of legality?[/quote]

No. The name Healing Surges is something people hate. And the name doesn't match the effect.

Skill challenges are artful in the hands of a good DM, but are otherwise terrible, in my opinion. I often see tables where a player will simply ask if he/she can use the character's good skill, without even trying to work into the story.

Yup. And my answer is always "What are you doing?" I'd start with the advice "Never tell your players they are in a skill challenge - this is a DM-side tool".

Also, to better formalize the non-combat part of the game, I would implement Traits: http://hastur.net/wiki/Traits_(4E)

Interesting, thaks. I'll have to give it a longer look sometime.

I'm very interested in reading these discussions.

There've been a few on rpg.net recently, general reaction was positive.

I'd like to read more about this. My inclination was to simply properly design a dozen stereotypical characters, and just use them for players that don't want to get bogged down in character creation.

Perhaps. But the other advantage of such domains and the like is that they allow tweaking of the power level of fluffy but sub-optimal builds that should work.

Please expand.

Will get back to it

My solution has been to tie it to milestones. Long rests are not mandatory, even if the character rests: they have to be specifically declared by players. The first encounter after a long rest is not a milestone. All other encounters (including skill challenges) are a milestone. APs can be used in skill challenges. Characters level up at 5 (or whatever) milestones.

I like that last kicker - so the first encounter of the day doesn't count for levelling up.

Mechanical Compatibility/ OGL
I really think that this is a great idea. I do not know how OGL publishing would function, but I think it is a good idea. But I also think that we, as posters on the manifest, need to determine whether we truly want OGL or not. Make no mistake, this is the first priority. We cannot reasonably re-haul any other subsystem of the game if we do not know how much we may or may not need to gut in the first place. And I think that if OSRIC can do it, so can we. And like Pathfinder, the new system if published under OGL needs to be free of plagerism - whatever we determine that means.

Yup. Especially on first priority. Although it's still got to be compatable.

On the note of powers, I have been wondering since the first day why there was not a power-scaling system. Since powers have to be replaced anyway, I say why not. When you have to start replacing powers at Paragon Tier, you don't learn a new technique, you learn to use it better.

Agreed.

...and that is my cue. I'm the guy from Square Fireballs, and while I've been suggesting (hopefully thoughtful) houserules for a few years now, I, too, have been tempted by the notion of a full-on 4E revision. Interestingly, when I laid out the design goals for my project, they turned out quite differently than what is discussed in this thread. The most notable divergence is the position about OGL, so I'll talk a bit about it.

Thanks! Interesting reading.

Is OGL really necessary? While it undoubtedly has some advantages, it also brings some critical drawbacks that need to be taken into account. To me, the dealbreaker was the need to keep all material in the SRD without modification. Furthermore, while the 4E GSL allows you to cite and reference stat blocks and rules under the SRD, you can't really reproduce any definition of game terms, nor redefine them for that matter. In my case, I knew I wanted freedom to tweak and improve any little rule in the book, and the ability to eventually produce a unified ruleset for the revised game - both options that are forbidden by the GSL.

You seem to be talking about the GSL and the OGL as if they are the same thing. They aren't - and I don't want to touch the GSL with a ten foot pole (and although we can use the OGL we can no longer use the D20 license - big deal). Which means that it's going back to the 3.5 SRD and reverse engineering from there. (And getting the Pathfinder PRD thrown in as it's also OGC). I see nothing in the OGL saying you can't modify text already there.

Another point where I disagree is in the issue of compatibility. To me, the absolutely necessary part boils down to races, classes (including powers) and adventures.

We don't actually disagree here.

 

[Ferghis]

Interesting - I thought at first you were talking about the 13th Age Escalation dice - adds to PC to hit rolls and starts at 1 and goes up once per round. A couple of ways of tweaking it, and it makes PCs want to save big powers.

I think that was the source of the idea. Rethinking it, it might be better to go with a carrot method: instead disallowing dailies, penalized them, and offset the penalty with the escalation/stake number.

The name Healing Surges is something people hate. And the name doesn't match the effect.

I had no idea. I don't see the disconnect between the name and the effect. To me, it's a surge of healing. But I'm sure I'll see what you mean eventually. I'm guessing it's something about the surges actually being exhaustion reserves or something. Still, we refer to recovering HP as "healing..."

I like that last kicker - so the first encounter of the day doesn't count for levelling up.

Precisely. So they can take the extended rest if they need to, but players usually just won't.

You seem to be talking about the GSL and the OGL as if they are the same thing. They aren't - and I don't want to touch the GSL with a ten foot pole (and although we can use the OGL we can no longer use the D20 license - big deal). Which means that it's going back to the 3.5 SRD and reverse engineering from there. (And getting the Pathfinder PRD thrown in as it's also OGC). I see nothing in the OGL saying you can't modify text already there.

I'm wondering if we really need to re-articulate the rules. Is there really an urgent need to make a "new" document to fully explain how the game works? What's the disadvantage of just working off of what is already out there, saying "please buy the Rules Compendium and XYZ (products of Wizards of the Coast) to use this product?" I wouldn't trust legal advice from strangers on the internet, but using trademarked names to refer to the trademarked product is entirely and incontrovertibly legal, and fair use should allow us to make (reasonable) use of copyrighted terms. This would also dramatically reduce the amount of work that needs to be done to get this thing going.

 

[Psikus]

Is OGL really necessary?

You seem to be talking about the GSL and the OGL as if they are the same thing. They aren't - and I don't want to touch the GSL with a ten foot pole (and although we can use the OGL we can no longer use the D20 license - big deal). Which means that it's going back to the 3.5 SRD and reverse engineering from there. (And getting the Pathfinder PRD thrown in as it's also OGC). I see nothing in the OGL saying you can't modify text already there.

Ah, I see. I hadn't even considered going back to the 3.5 license, so I just assumed you meant the GSL. The OGL certainly has much less draconian conditions, but I am a bit confused as to the benefits of this approach. What is the advantage of using heavily modified OGL material rather than a non-licensed ruleset built from scratch? I see little of use there, from a mechanic standpoint, and at this point, the level of effort must be pretty close, if not worse for the OGL solution.

Another point where I disagree is in the issue of compatibility.

We don't actually disagree here.

Never mind, then. I read your sentence about old 4E characters playing the same as implying the need to keep all the existing feats/paths/destinies.

 

[Ferghis]

What is the advantage of using heavily modified OGL material rather than a non-licensed ruleset built from scratch?

I think it carves a safe haven for using some of the D&D language that some fear would otherwise get them into legal hot water. Words like beholder and hit points, perhaps.

 

[Xethreau]

I think it carves a safe have for using some of the D&D language that some fear would otherwise get them into legal hot water. Words like beholder and hit points, perhaps.

Actually, Beholders are not under the OGL at all; they are copyright by WotC only, same with mind flayers.

But yes what you say about, hit points, AC, reflex, fortitude, etc. are all correct. The risk about this is, was someone said, inheriting definitions. But we can modify OGL definitions, yes? (I actually have not reviewed the OGL in quite some time.)

The only problem I see is incorporating the power system within the OGL. Part of what I hate (and I do not use that word lightly) about 3e-based games are Effective Character Level, Save DC's by spell level, Spell formatting, spell resistance, etc. It would be a sin to let these things seep through to the unified power system.

Though on a different note, as the Square Fireballs suggests, the math of the game would not hurt from an overhaul (and to reiterate, we need to figure out the OGL thing before that is possible.) I also like the idea of offering wider builds out of the gate and character conversion advice.

I think we need someone with legal knowledge to help us through the OGL buisness...

 

[GreyICE]

Well 4 E isn't under the OGL but the GSL. The GSL is a LOT less restrictive than some people seem to think it is, but it's still more restrictive than the OGL, and we should probably respect it.

For instance, you may create powers that resemble
those in D&D 4E Player’s Handbook. You may use the
guidelines in Chapter 6: Adventures of the D&D 4E Dungeon
Master’s Guide to influence how you create your own
adventures. Similarly, you may use the rules for Treasure System Reference Document ©2009 Wizards of the Coast page 3 of 84
Parcels (D&D 4E Dungeon Master’s Guide, page 126) to create
treasure hoards in your adventure

Reading it, I'm not entirely positive we'd be allowed to redefine powers, and we certainly couldn't redefine it by reproducing the entire text. Of course that wouldn't be allowed under the OGL either, so.

Our right to produce tables INFLUENCED by WotC's tables probably means we could make tables similar to WotC's but with different values, but ironically to start fixing the math coherently we'd have to change all the math we didn't want to fix (in order to reproduce the table). I'm not entirely sure the Pazio precident would fly in the GSL (Reproduce the exact XP table but add like "10" to each value in order to make it a "different table"). Then again, I've always been skeptical that the Pazio precedent flew in the first place (Really, you're going to fudge a few numbers and claim its a different table? Really?)

 

[Xethreau]

Good points Grey. (Can I call you Grey?)

Though I do not believe that any WotC published material uses the GSL. Since they own the brand, they would not need to publish under their own licence - at least that is my understanding (we need a real lawyer). My thought is that we do not need to use the GSL unless you are making a 4e-compatible supplement. But I think this is our saving grace, for we are doing the opposite:

I believe we should consider 4e compatible with our product, and not visa-verca.

In fact, I think that is how Pathfinder and OSRIC do it. Create a new product that admittedly is influenced by an old product, and defend it on the account of flow of compatibility.

 

[Xethreau]

I did some research just now. The OGL states that one must have the

Representation of Authority to Contribute: If You are contributing original material as Open Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License.

Which means to me that we should check to see what 4e-style things already exist in the SRD, and what does not (this is what OSRIC did), and completely gut what we do not desire, and use/modify/add what we do. After a few minutes, I discovered that a lot of 4e systems already exist in the SRD, or could be reasonably modified from what is contained therein. This is what I found, and my thoughts on them.

Healing Surges - There already exists a mechanic called Reserve Points in the SRD. It could be easily extended to include "reserve surges." Sound familiar?

Defenses - This can be easily modified from what already exists, and the precedent to do so already exists in the "Players roll all dice" alternate rule. Smelt it with a spell-attack system (coming later) and what one might call versatile saving throws (where one uses the best of two score modifiers for saves/defenses) and we have the 4e defense system, sans the half-level and enhancement bonuses.

Rituals - These can be easily modified from the incantation system. Gut the annoying 3.5 style BS, make it easy to remember, overhaul what we want, maybe even reincorporate the "dangerous" buisness, and you have new-and-improved 4e style rituals.

Skills - They needed an overhaul anyway. We just define the ones we want how we want them. Easy.

Resting - This seems like an easy system to employ. It becomes an alternate rule to the "realistic" natural healing system. Since this needs an overhaul from 4e as well, we just include our new versions of short and extended rests (whatever we decide that means) and boom. Done.

Backgrounds - Such a system by that name already exists in the SRD, but I cannot make ups or downs of it at a glance. I suggest implementing a system that would be equivelent to the 4e backgrounds called "Character Origin," which would give a +2 bonus to a skill, make something a class skill, or they could learn a bonus language. Boom.

Skill Training - Star Wars Saga Edition does this. Since we are in favor of a math overhaul, this could probably be used, but I do not see it in the SRD.

Attack Spells - Since the "Players roll all the dice" buisness shows how spells can be used in attacks, we got this down.

4e-style spells/powers - This would be moderately to highly challenging overhaul, but it is possible. It would require a lot of fat cutting, and maybe also some creative compromising. Many classes might look more like they do in Essentials (which I do not consider a bad thing). Once such a system is implemented, cross-class compatibility should be easy.

Themes - The most problematic thing I can see here is its name. Like Weapons of Legacy had to be recoined Legendary Weapons, themes will have to undergo a similar titular adjustment. Other than that though, it seems like an easy rule to implement: "themes" or whatever simply add new features, RP hooks, and a compliment of alternate class features/powers/spells.

Magic Items - I don't know what we are going to do about this. Ficus that shitsu. It can come last as far as I am concerned.

Conditions and Other Rules - Since we can gut and readjust the rules how we want, from what I can tell, we could just record how we deviate from the RAW SRD suggestions, and publish those "new" things when we get there. The liberty to gut spell save DC's, skill points, ECL etc is a great comfort to me.

Encounters - Since we want to do an overhaul of this, I say we figure that out when the time comes.


My point being that I think we have most of the 4e rules already covered, or easily reinvented under the OGL. Is there any other major system of 4e that I have not covered here that we need to consider?

If not, it is my vote that we follow the path to OGL, modify the system math tremendously as we deem fit, and after that fill in the system with delicious fluff and create a beautiful system.