D&D 4E Looking for thoughts on my kitbashed 4E

[cmad1977]

On game night I'm looking to play something that doesn't require a bunch of house revisions that I'd have to learn and which don't apply to any other game.
It's just me I imagine but for that reason... I'm out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's too bad, because they are an arbitrary list of classes chosen only for backwards compatibility with editions other than 4e (or there'd be a Warlord - no, I will not ever shut up about that).

You and me both, brother!

Nod. Prior to, Class had existed at the intersection of Source and Role. Post-Essentials, sub-class did. The functional difference was that you could have different class features emphasizing a different role, while still leveraging the existing list of powers. That's the exact same insight as Abdul mentioned, above, in the context of consolidating powers by source.

Functionally, having powers by source and roles by class is about the same as having powers by class and roles by sub-class, the main difference being there are more classes, and some of them are going to be redundant if you follow through and give each all 4 roles...

Which is exactly where I ended up with HoML. There ARE no subclasses (though I did go in for different variations of priests depending on the god you worship, still, you COULD make those each a class, it just becomes a bit much). Actually power sources only have a modest, but core, set of powers. MOST powers ended up attached to 'boons' (which are kind of a mixture of items, feats, backgrounds, themes, PPs, and EDs). So all martial PCs are likely to share a power or two, but what makes knights distinctive are the class features they have which say 'defender'. Likewise rogues are definitely strikers, but most of that they get from their striker dice and extra action mechanics. There are definitely boons you may want that are best for a particular role, but many are more generic.

That'd at least give you a reason to have multiple martial strikers or arcane controllers or whatever...

Potentially. It still seems best to have a fairly broad mix. Once you hit the main theme of a given source/role then maybe double up where it makes sense. 4e certainly did.

The HotFw Berserker captured that particularly well, Rage was a switch that changed your role.

It wasn't a bad concept.

That's a legacy from when the Bard was a not-so-great class (or proto-PrC, for that matter). The Bard concepts makes a good deal of sense as a leader, and could make some as a controller (not the blasty kind). That's really about it.

Yeah, I can see a class that can fill 2 roles based on a switch, but it has to be thematic. I never really thought much of 'jack-of-all-trades' as a strong concept. Its OK to have a lot of different skills, but when it comes to fighting, you need a pretty solid niche.

Fits with the Cleric as the original leader (healer), but clashes with it's secondary-controller role (which goes way back, because it's always been a full caster with condition-inflicting and area-damage spells).

Eh, no reason why they can't have more varied secondary roles. I always thought that the various clerics needed more distinction anyway. 4e particularly didn't do this well.

That's a pretty good idea. Non-supernatural characters in D&D suffer from a profound lack of versatility relative to Tier 1 classes, while they may never be able to engage in conjuring up a variety of named damage types, ex nillo creation, or any of the myriad things magic writes onto it's blank check as a matter of course, being able to fairly easily switch roles by changing gear & tactics would be a level of versatility, one that could be un-matched by classes that get their role support primarily from more fixed class features.

It certainly isn't a bad idea. Bow makes you a striker, shield a defender, but leader is a bit harder to fathom, and its hard to really create a dividing line between defender and martial controller, though I think a polearm equipped fighter could certainly shade in that direction. Beyond that different weapons can certainly differentiate styles of fighting. I did some of this with HoML where certain boons associate with specific weapons and create fighting styles.

Obviously, S&B and heavy-armor works for the Defender role, TWF, GWF, & Archery; also fairly obviously, lighter armor for Striker; Pole-arms, martial arts, & thrown weapons (and archery, again) and lighter (even no?) armor could work for control, going on past builds & powers, like the 3e reach-based battle-field-control builds, and powers like blinding barrage, for instance.

The Leader role doesn't seem much to speak to weapons & gear, though. Separate Warlord class for that would make sense.

Aye

Yes, that's what it's called - IDK what the big deal was about it, though. :shrug:

In theory at least it created additional mobility I guess? I think it needed a bit more going for it frankly.

Works. Hm... works for Avenger, too.

Yeah, in 4e the Avenger really got that one. Pally is a nice blend of leader and defender.

Oh, please, no. Not the Grizzly Adams thing. Seriously, the Ranger got some companions at name level, and could cast Animal Friendship around the same level. How did that become Animal Companion in 3e, anyway?

Just drop the class rather than go there.

Why not? I mean, why do light weapons and bows have to be a class? Instead have a super nature-attuned ranger. Maybe AC isn't his ONLY option, but it can be a GOOD one. Make it a really solid defender or controller option...

Works in 13A. That's how Lurkers tended to work, and the upshot was that the pay-off had to be overwhelming to be relevant. Meh. I still feel the thief should just be folded into the fighter. That is, if you can get the fighter to seamlessly go either DEX or STR, like in 5e (see 5e's done a few things well).

I see the rogue as the deceptive warrior. He fights dirty, he bluffs, he ambushes, it works thematically, always has (maybe not so much mechanically in most editions, but 4e did it pretty well).

I'm seeing less and less reason to break these two out.

Not ideal. The wizard has been the most versatile class in every edition, making it something of an advanced/special case. As a baseline that's problematic.

Which is EXACTLY the reason to break out Sorcerers and Witches. Necromancers and illusionists too! In fact, its the baseline wizard I question the existence of!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

[Sorceror]
Choose your type (as regular)
When you make an [arcane] ranged attack, you get a bonus to the next melee or close attack damage roll equal to your charisma modifier you make before the end of your next turn.
It would also be cool if we designed special daily powers that gave them an ongoing benefit, a powerful at-will and a strong encounter that would end the effects when used. Something like :

You get an Aura 2 (deal 3 fire damage to any creature entering or starting it's turn in the aura), at-will "scorching burst" (2d8 + ongoing 3) and encounter (close burst 3, massive damage)

... I'm not done with this yet, but I'll come back to it later.

So, how about just a straight up damage aura as a striker bonus. So, maybe that's the 'dragon' sorcerer (pick the type). Then you have your 'cosmic' sorcerer, maybe he spits off some random effect in an aura. Storm could be your controller type that creates an aura around the primary target that slows/whatever. I'm sure this can be developed in some nice directions.

 

[Xeviat]

That is just my opinion, but…

First, this is more than a few changes. You are remaking the edition. May as well create your own home-brewed edition or even an entirely new game.

Functionally, I'm remaking the player side of 4E, yes, but I like the core of the system math and the monsters, as well as the DM's tools. But I'd rather the classes progress and flow a little more classically. I also don't want two dozen classes because I think so many of the 4E classes can fall together once you consider their thematics, like Paladin and Avenger or Cleric and Invoker.

I want class to be a thing that you are, a thing that is visible in the world. Without having individual powers for each class (which really made reading the classes boring to me in 4E; honestly, reading the spells section is the last thing I did with 3E and 5E), the classes need to be differentiated by a strong core mechanic that separates them from the others.

I think I'm close to achieving that with the classes I have now. I'm not 100% sure if I want to add the artificer and psion/Mystic or not, as it starts break be symmetry I love (if one considers the barbarian and monk to be kinds of martial, and the inner power ki classes, they can be together as the 4 martials, primal and divine are paired, and arcane has 4 as well). But, I do think the Artificer as a concept is strong enough to stand on its own, even though it hasn't been a part of D&D forever (the Warlock is new too, but it seems thematically different enough to entertain it).

As you can see, I'm struggling a little to find the defining mechanics for the Bard and Cleric. At the easiest level, Bards have their inspiration or Bardic Music. Toggling which song you're using would influence your style (I'm remembering the Diablo 2 Paladin's auras).

For the cleric, differentiating a controller cleric from a controller wizard is tough. I never saw an Invoker in play, but they seemed very similar to the Wizard on paper. I'd like something that made the cleric's magic feel like it wasn't their own, like it was coming from somewhere else. The way domains work does make clerics like other classes, which could be explored (multiclassing light? War clerics are a little fighter, trickery are a little rogue, magic are a little wizard, nature are a little Druid ...), but that doesn't seem to be a playstyle thing. If I abandon the attempt to make clerics and wizards any of the four roles, it becomes less of a problem, because we can go to a white magic vs black magic thing, but where does flame strike fit into that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MoutonRustique]

I'll table my initial approach for now.

[snip]
As you can see, I'm struggling a little to find the defining mechanics for the Bard and Cleric. At the easiest level, Bards have their inspiration or Bardic Music. Toggling which song you're using would influence your style (I'm remembering the Diablo 2 Paladin's auras).

For a simple, but very "bard" feel, you could do worse than the [Skald] - the idea of an active aura of electable buffs works really well in play, and it fits the idea of "magical music" to a T.

It would be easy enough to create a couple of different auras with a passive and "active" bonus : passive is just on, the active part is when the character grabs that extra boost (spends the healing surge, heals and [insert buff here]).

For the cleric, differentiating a controller cleric from a controller wizard is tough. I never saw an Invoker in play, but they seemed very similar to the Wizard on paper. I'd like something that made the cleric's magic feel like it wasn't their own, like it was coming from somewhere else. The way domains work does make clerics like other classes, which could be explored (multiclassing light? War clerics are a little fighter, trickery are a little rogue, magic are a little wizard, nature are a little Druid ...), but that doesn't seem to be a playstyle thing. If I abandon the attempt to make clerics and wizards any of the four roles, it becomes less of a problem, because we can go to a white magic vs black magic thing, but where does flame strike fit into that?

I have no easy solutions to your problems for this...

One thing to keep in mind is that having two classes with the same base-mechanics and types of effects (role) will probably be pretty hard to "make feel very distinctive" - especially on paper. In game, you can really stress the fluff and such, but when you boil down the "what can they do, how do they do it", there's little room to make them stand very far apart...

The only solution I can offer you is one you're probably not going to like : differentiation by powers...

If I had to do it, I would go this route:
- [wizards] have spells that work in zones and walls. Their effects are never ongoing on a target, they are ongoing in an area.
Examples: cloud of daggers (yes), scorching burst (no)

- [invokers] have spells that always impose a "sanction" (i.e. soft-control). Their effects are ongoing on targets and they impose a severe "Do (or don't) X or very bad Y will happen".
Examples: (don't have the books to look up what I want) - [regular attack rider] if the target willingly moves more than 2 squares, it suffers 3d6 radiant damage. (or you could go with : Target is slowed. The target may suffer 3d6 radiant damage to cancel this condition as a free action.)

I feel this creates a pretty good : I affect the world with my magic VS I am the Voice of a Higher Power (best do what I say)

How could this be done with "class features"...
First Random Idea
[wizard] all area effects create a zone that lasts until the end of your next turn. The zone deals [Int+Implement] damage to a creature that ends it's turn in the zone. The zone is also lightly obscured.
(if you want it more dangerous/powerful, change the damage to trigger "when entering or starting it's turn")

[invoker] when you deal [radiant] damage to a creature, it also treats all creatures as having concealment until the end of your next turn. When you deal [thunder] damage, the target is also slowed until the start of your next turn. A creature may cancel any (or both) of these conditions as a free action. If it does so, it suffers 2d8+Cha+Implement radiant damage.

Of course the balance of these ideas is very likely to be all over the place - I'm brainstorming here

 

[Igwilly]

Functionally, I'm remaking the player side of 4E, yes, but I like the core of the system math and the monsters, as well as the DM's tools. But I'd rather the classes progress and flow a little more classically. I also don't want two dozen classes because I think so many of the 4E classes can fall together once you consider their thematics, like Paladin and Avenger or Cleric and Invoker.

True, you could say that. However, you also can say that to every class outside the core four – and I’m being really kind here.
If you don’t want two dozen classes, it’s fine. However, many with this notion seem to think classes are about what we need, but they are about what we want.
Thematics are how we separate classes, not unify them! ^^

I want class to be a thing that you are, a thing that is visible in the world. Without having individual powers for each class (which really made reading the classes boring to me in 4E; honestly, reading the spells section is the last thing I did with 3E and 5E), the classes need to be differentiated by a strong core mechanic that separates them from the others.

I think I'm close to achieving that with the classes I have now. I'm not 100% sure if I want to add the artificer and psion/Mystic or not, as it starts break be symmetry I love (if one considers the barbarian and monk to be kinds of martial, and the inner power ki classes, they can be together as the 4 martials, primal and divine are paired, and arcane has 4 as well). But, I do think the Artificer as a concept is strong enough to stand on its own, even though it hasn't been a part of D&D forever (the Warlock is new too, but it seems thematically different enough to entertain it).

I agree with you: class should be a thing you really are. Classes do exist in my gaming worlds.
Anyway, I think a nice mix of the two is nice. Classes don’t need all-exclusive powers, but differentiating the abilities they use a little bit is good. At least in my opinion.
Do not tie yourself too much to symmetry, though. It gets really painful if you insist.

As you can see, I'm struggling a little to find the defining mechanics for the Bard and Cleric. At the easiest level, Bards have their inspiration or Bardic Music. Toggling which song you're using would influence your style (I'm remembering the Diablo 2 Paladin's auras).

For the cleric, differentiating a controller cleric from a controller wizard is tough. I never saw an Invoker in play, but they seemed very similar to the Wizard on paper. I'd like something that made the cleric's magic feel like it wasn't their own, like it was coming from somewhere else. The way domains work does make clerics like other classes, which could be explored (multiclassing light? War clerics are a little fighter, trickery are a little rogue, magic are a little wizard, nature are a little Druid ...), but that doesn't seem to be a playstyle thing. If I abandon the attempt to make clerics and wizards any of the four roles, it becomes less of a problem, because we can go to a white magic vs black magic thing, but where does flame strike fit into that?

All of my ideas for creating bards and clerics of different faiths fall under what people may call “class bloat”, so I’m not really sure if they would be of useful, but…
I just don’t think every class should be able to fill every role, even if this only applies to core four classes. That’s something I see people doing while making “quasi-clones” of 4e, but it bugs me.
I’m facing the same problem in my games: how to differentiate between arcane magic and divine magic. I’m inclined to use the “black magic vs white magic” approach, also due to my affinity for Final Fantasy. However, exceptions of the common rule may exist. As long as they feel very different from just copying the other field, and are very sporadic instead of commonplace, things are fine.
The problem with some D&D classes, such as the Bard and the Cleric, is just that people want them to do so many different things and have so many different play-styles available. It is hard to do that without overgeneralizing the class to the ground, and I chose to just get away of that route.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

All of my ideas for creating bards and clerics of different faiths fall under what people may call “class bloat”, so I’m not really sure if they would be of useful, but…
I just don’t think every class should be able to fill every role, even if this only applies to core four classes. That’s something I see people doing while making “quasi-clones” of 4e, but it bugs me.
I’m facing the same problem in my games: how to differentiate between arcane magic and divine magic. I’m inclined to use the “black magic vs white magic” approach, also due to my affinity for Final Fantasy. However, exceptions of the common rule may exist. As long as they feel very different from just copying the other field, and are very sporadic instead of commonplace, things are fine.
The problem with some D&D classes, such as the Bard and the Cleric, is just that people want them to do so many different things and have so many different play-styles available. It is hard to do that without overgeneralizing the class to the ground, and I chose to just get away of that route.

Sorry if I'm 'banging my own drum' again, but in HoML, which definitely remakes a lot of 4e, I simply discarded the concept of an 'arcane power source'. The WORD 'arcane' simply means something which is known or knowable only to a few, obscure, or mysterious. As such it describes a condition of knowledge, not a source of power. The problem, thematically, is then that arcane HAS NO THEMATICS. This is ABUNDANTLY clear WRT to the 4e Wizard, and then made gob-stoppingly clear when the Mage comes along and literally swallows have the class hierarchy, thematically. Think about it this way, if the Wizard is the guy who knows 'arcane stuff' (and he's thematically the academic, the other classes in this power source at best sip from this font) then he basically has no limits. Any knowledge might be 'arcane', and there's surely the possibility of some 'arcana' which can provide the needed information to do ANY particular thing. So, the thematics boil down to 'guy who can figure out how to do anything'. See the problem?!

The Cleric by itself isn't REALLY an issue. I mean, its better thematically if you have clerics that operate within particular spheres (and whether you call that a class, a subclass, or a 'build' is a whole other argument). Still, Cleric is thematically limited to granted power (thus always subject to the limits of the powers of the gods, the powers the gods are willing to grant, etc). Its a bit open-ended in some sense, but with a sphere to put some boundaries on it then the class becomes a pretty reasonable concept that shouldn't really step on too many toes.

In terms of 'mage-like' classes... There are a few possible approaches. Force all wizards to effectively be what 4e calls 'warlocks', that is they acquire power via pacts and thus you can limit them much like clerics (and there can be a nice symmetry here). You could also make them all specialize, but that seems kind of a weak option. I mean there's always that guy who's good at lots of stuff... There's also the question there of actual power source. What I finally decided on was simply having a few different types of classes that are each pretty limited and rely on specific power sources or patrons.

One could be an academic wizard serving Ioun via a pact for example. Mechanically you'd be a type of 'warlock' in essence with a pact benefit that was some sort of source of arcane knowledge (but under the control of your mentor). These types might be close to the 4e invoker in some sense.

Sorcerers would be the basis for another 'caster type' which would be your innate caster. I think they've already been reasonably well developed.

In terms of the idea of 'no class powers' I think you could do it, though exactly how a 'warlock' (character with a patron) would assemble a list I'm not sure. I guess they could be much like spheres. That sort of jumbles the neat power source to class thing a bit, but maybe there's a way to fix that, not sure.

 

[Xeviat]

I'm strongly considering having the wizard have access to metamagic abilities to represent their intelligence and adaptability. They write the spells, so they can change them. But, I'm not sure that differentiates them from clerics in the way they're playing: a cleric of a fire god may still be similar to a fire obsessed evoker.

Another thought that was presented to me was to find a way to make it so the cleric's playstyle made it seem like they were rewarded for acting in accordance to their faith. Their example was how Warlocks get boons when a target of their curse dies, but obviously one would want to make it different. Not malevolent. But, I keep going back to a cleric of a Fire god, if you're rewarded for burning things, how are you playing differently than a fire themed evoker?

I may have to accept a strong distinction between Arcane and divine spells to keep the classes unique.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Garthanos]

I agree with you: class should be a thing you really are. Classes do exist in my gaming worlds.

I am the opposite... they definitely do not exist atleast in a nailed down form there are people who have heroic roles but how you build one of those with the game varies by what aspect you want to emphasize for your characters story.

For the simplest example of why, which class is my Samurai?...

 

[Igwilly]

Sorry if I'm 'banging my own drum' again, but in HoML, which definitely remakes a lot of 4e, I simply discarded the concept of an 'arcane power source'. The WORD 'arcane' simply means something which is known or knowable only to a few, obscure, or mysterious. As such it describes a condition of knowledge, not a source of power. The problem, thematically, is then that arcane HAS NO THEMATICS. This is ABUNDANTLY clear WRT to the 4e Wizard, and then made gob-stoppingly clear when the Mage comes along and literally swallows have the class hierarchy, thematically. Think about it this way, if the Wizard is the guy who knows 'arcane stuff' (and he's thematically the academic, the other classes in this power source at best sip from this font) then he basically has no limits. Any knowledge might be 'arcane', and there's surely the possibility of some 'arcana' which can provide the needed information to do ANY particular thing. So, the thematics boil down to 'guy who can figure out how to do anything'. See the problem?!

The Cleric by itself isn't REALLY an issue. I mean, its better thematically if you have clerics that operate within particular spheres (and whether you call that a class, a subclass, or a 'build' is a whole other argument). Still, Cleric is thematically limited to granted power (thus always subject to the limits of the powers of the gods, the powers the gods are willing to grant, etc). Its a bit open-ended in some sense, but with a sphere to put some boundaries on it then the class becomes a pretty reasonable concept that shouldn't really step on too many toes.

In terms of 'mage-like' classes... There are a few possible approaches. Force all wizards to effectively be what 4e calls 'warlocks', that is they acquire power via pacts and thus you can limit them much like clerics (and there can be a nice symmetry here). You could also make them all specialize, but that seems kind of a weak option. I mean there's always that guy who's good at lots of stuff... There's also the question there of actual power source. What I finally decided on was simply having a few different types of classes that are each pretty limited and rely on specific power sources or patrons.

One could be an academic wizard serving Ioun via a pact for example. Mechanically you'd be a type of 'warlock' in essence with a pact benefit that was some sort of source of arcane knowledge (but under the control of your mentor). These types might be close to the 4e invoker in some sense.

Sorcerers would be the basis for another 'caster type' which would be your innate caster. I think they've already been reasonably well developed.

In terms of the idea of 'no class powers' I think you could do it, though exactly how a 'warlock' (character with a patron) would assemble a list I'm not sure. I guess they could be much like spheres. That sort of jumbles the neat power source to class thing a bit, but maybe there's a way to fix that, not sure.

Honestly, you seem to understand the concept of the Wizard, but you just don’t like it.
My thoughts…
Arcane magic isn’t about studying everything. It’s about studying Magic, or at least what mortals know about it. Magic is inherently mysterious, but we can know a lot stuff such as behaviors, patterns and processes. Studying it means understanding more of this mystery, and the ability to use it to his/her own benefit. They’re basically the guys that study enough to know the cosmic cheat codes one can use. Studying more about the “arcane” (mystery of Magic) is their power.
Arcane magic is also defined by what it is not: It doesn’t come directly from the gods, neither from the Plane of Shadows, neither from your own mind, etc. It’s like a giant pool of magic that can be utilized by wizards.
However, since Magic is essentially weird and irrational, there’s nothing that guarantees wizards have access to all magic. It can be just a property: magic from study gives you these effects, magic you pray to the gods gives you those effects, etc. It simply is. Who said Magic must obey to our silly mortal logic?
I don’t know if I’m being clear here, it just takes a while to explain my full view of magic. However, the resume is: weird, mysterious, cheat codes, different access gives you different powers, and illogical.
I would be against such a change you are mentioning. Depending on the game and setting, magic coming only from specifically someone or something can work well. However, in a “generic” High Fantasy game or simply Old-School-style, I want my bookworm wizard doing awesome stuff without having to make a pact with the Devil or something like that. Other classes are more than welcome, but don’t take out the classics

I am the opposite... they definitely do not exist atleast in a nailed down form there are people who have heroic roles but how you build one of those with the game varies by what aspect you want to emphasize for your characters story.

For the simplest example of why, which class is my Samurai?...

Samurai.