Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Looking for thoughts on my kitbashed 4E
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7232989" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>You and me both, brother! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It wasn't a bad concept.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Aye</p><p></p><p></p><p>In theory at least it created additional mobility I guess? I think it needed a bit more going for it frankly.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah, in 4e the Avenger really got that one. Pally is a nice blend of leader and defender.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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...</p><p></p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 7232989, member: 82106"] You and me both, brother! ;) 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. 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. It wasn't a bad concept. 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. 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. 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. Aye In theory at least it created additional mobility I guess? I think it needed a bit more going for it frankly. Yeah, in 4e the Avenger really got that one. Pally is a nice blend of leader and defender. 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... 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). 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! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Looking for thoughts on my kitbashed 4E
Top