Only thing I don't like so far: Power Replacement

[hamishspence]

Sorcerers

Sorcs in 3rd ed, and martial classes in TOB, tended to retrain their spells known as they went up. But usally only on at a time, so 1st lvel had much less than 20th level. Whereas 4th ed power swapping means much smaller range of options. How you use those options is another thing.

 

[JohnSnow]

What do you guys think of this idea?:

Paragon (Class) – Instead of choosing a Paragon Path, you may focus on your own class instead, becoming a Paragon Cleric, Paragon Wizard, etc. At 11th level, all of your class At Will powers become more effective, gaining their 21st level damage bonus 10 levels early. At 11th level you also gain an Action Point power: Instead of gaining an extra action, you may spend an Action Point to turn 1 regular hit with a class power into a critical hit, doing maximum damage to that 1 target. (Any other targets suffer the normal rolled damage.) You may decide to use this ability after rolling for damage. At 12th level, choose any 1 Utility power for your class, up to 10th level. At 13th, 15th, 17th, and 19th level, you gain additional class powers without replacing your old powers. This means you will eventually have 1 more Encounter and Daily power than most characters, as you are effectively trading your Paragon encounter and Daily powers for retaining 2 of each from much lower levels.

With the exception of the first ability (gaining the 21st level damage 10 levels early), it looks fine.

It's nice, gives you more options, and isn't overpowering compared to any of the Paragon Paths. I'd say it looks like good design.

Trash the extra damage though. It's unnecessary and overpowered.

 

[sunrisekid]

(surprisingly long debate, skipping most of it)

To respond to the OP, and in support of the early comment regarding calculus retention, I would also add that the body forgets how to perform specialized athletic tasks. Real world "exploits" that, once trained to a high degree proficiency, will attenuate with time and lack of consistent training.

For example, if someone spends a year learning to rock-climb and then stops for a year their body will return to the original gumby state it was in prior to training, regardless of how much time they spent lifting weights.

Anybody who has not taken the time to develop specialized athletic competence is unlikely to understand this.

Another example, related to the early comment on calculus. Anybody who has learned a second language as an adult, then stopped using it, then tried to use it again later in life, certainly understands this phenomenon.

It's kind of pointless to debate the issue of relearning skills in a game when it's precisely the sort of activity that occurs in real life. Of course, disregarding reality is largely what makes D&D fun but...

 

[Thasmodious]

And for some reason, that was less intrusive to me. I suppose it's because it's not just wizards, but every high level character ever who has learned higher level powers has somehow "forgotten" how to use the most basic of abilities.

It doesn't require much effort to explain if you actually need the rationalizing. The powers aren't simply moves or techniques, they draw on the power sources of the world. That's why a 20th level fighter can't teach the local militia captain Serpent Dance Strike. The power sources are a tangible thing and they are both the source of the powerful options characters have, and the limit of character power.

If you need to take it further, you can think along class lines. Arcane casters only have so much overall magical energy, so they literally replace old, lesser spells with newer, more powerful ones. The old ones are lost to them in the same way they always have been in D&D. Martial characters are incorporating simpler techniques into more complex and powerful overall effects - like a fighter who's Crushing Blow eventually became Mountain Breaking Blow as his Str, training and ability increased. Divine characters are given powers and limited by the gods, of course, so that's an easy one.

The feat someone made up earlier would be much to powerful, but I could see one where you retain the ability to use your replaced powers, but only in place of your new ones. So, for example, a 13th level character would know 4 encounter powers - P,3,7,13. With the feat, he would now 5, but only have 4 slots per encounter, with his old 1st level power being able to replace his 13th. So it would look like - P,3,7,13(1)

That 1st level power won't get chosen that often, but you can then claim you haven't forgotten it and can still use it when the time is right or just for nostalgia, without breaking the game with a second character's worth of extra powers.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Exactly. If it ever comes up that someone really really wants to use one of their old abilities, I'd use some kind of a stunt mechanic to let them do it. I don't see it as necessary at all, but I'd rather not argue about it.

How you explain what powers "mean" in the game world affects how you view this, too. I personally don't take "Encounter Power X" that a fighter has as some set move he makes that has the result; I figure he's fighting as hard as he can all the time, and Power X being activated by the player is their way of saying "And then he gets a particularly good hit in, with X effect".

I think the metaphors get a bit mixed trying to reconcile that kind of take on it with "Wizards know these spells with these effects", so I'm thinking I won't even bother to stick with the old D&D spell model. I think a spellbook being your "workbook" that you use notes from to prepare various spells is one way you can make the mechanics fit the setting. Then spells are semi-improvised spell effects that are particularly effective, kind of like how martial feats work in the above explanation.

 

[toxicspirit]

Right so powers are replaced, for the following reasons

so that the number of options are in a fight are not increased beyond a "managable" level.

I would not advocate more uses per day/encounter than the character would normally be entitled to under the rules. I would just like to see more choices as to what exact Powers can be used for those limited amount of times.

so that encounter powers aren't spammed every fight so that at-wills are not ignored.

I would also not allow more than one use of any specific Power (barring in-game canon exceptions).

The demigod power is not useless (minor point)

Once a character has used his alloted number of Encounter Powers, this effect would kick in, allowing him the use of any Encounter Power he knows, just as it works now. It wouldn't really be a problem. Just a touch more bookkeeping for a lot more flavor.

 

[Fanaelialae]

As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, I think this has more to do with the level-based mechanic than anything else (ex. killing a goblin and suddenly feeling significantly more competent at just about everything). Personally, I don't have a problem with it; for me, that's just one aspect of what D&D IS.

If you do have a problem with it, a simple solution would be to require characters to undergo X amount of training (possibly with a mentor of higher level) before they can gain level/retraining benefits. Fighter Joe spends a month training with Grandmaster Bob; he's learned to use the Anvil of Doom technique but hasn't had time to practice (and has therefore lost the use of) Steel Serpent Strike. Joe's new abilities now make perfect sense from the point of versimilitude.

Personally, I consider training to be a PITA as both DM and player (I find it needlessly breaks up the flow of the story), but YMMV.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

(surprisingly long debate, skipping most of it)

To respond to the OP, and in support of the early comment regarding calculus retention, I would also add that the body forgets how to perform specialized athletic tasks. Real world "exploits" that, once trained to a high degree proficiency, will attenuate with time and lack of consistent training.

For example, if someone spends a year learning to rock-climb and then stops for a year their body will return to the original gumby state it was in prior to training, regardless of how much time they spent lifting weights.

Anybody who has not taken the time to develop specialized athletic competence is unlikely to understand this.

Another example, related to the early comment on calculus. Anybody who has learned a second language as an adult, then stopped using it, then tried to use it again later in life, certainly understands this phenomenon.

It's kind of pointless to debate the issue of relearning skills in a game when it's precisely the sort of activity that occurs in real life. Of course, disregarding reality is largely what makes D&D fun but...

I would be fine with this rationale if the skills system didn't work in exactly the opposite way, where you can remember and perform every easy DC you have ever learned.

...

The way that I might handle this is that the number of encounter/daily powers at a given level is a hard and fast limit. In addition, you don't unlearn your lower level spells, neither are you limited to any one power per encounter/day, meaning you can use any combination of powers up to your encounter/daily/utility limit. In this way, every class is more like a 3e sorcerer, which is both good and bad, depending on your take.

Good:
>Characters have the option of casting lower level powers at higher levels, but it uses up a "slot" for the encounter/day.
>Higher level characters don't forget powers.
>Characters have more options in combat.
>Characters can use the same ability twice or more an encounter (why exactly can't I use an ability twice?).

Bad:
>Characters may spam the same powerful spell over and over again.
>Characters have more options, meaning they can choose the right ability for the encounter, making the game easier overall.

The good part outweighs the bad for me, but I definitely can see how it could be detrimental to other gaming groups.

...

A less drastic change would be just to allow the apprentice ability and the ability you retrained into "stack", meaning that they share the same slot, and you can choose to cast one or the other but not both. This gives higher level characters the option to cast the previously forgotten lower level spells at the expense of their higher level spells.

 

[sinecure]

It's best not to think of 4E rules as representing a fictitious imaginary world. The rules aren't designed to do that. It's better to think of the options the rules give to each of the players as cards in a card game. As cards are played sequentially or simultaneously for a trick the whole game proceeds. There are lots of interesting options that cards can have. Using those options to beat other players, or in this case another team of players, can be lots of fun.

For example, look at Magic the Gathering. Do the players of that game really care about the pictures and short descriptions on each card? No. Of course not. They have nothing to do with the game at all. The cool artwork and cursive fluff text at the bottom are decorative. Nothing more.

Games like Poker have more to do with pictures on cards because their rules refer to the pictures (like suicide kings are wild or diamonds are trump). But just because the pictures now have rules associated with them doesn't mean you are pretending to be a king or string of diamonds. I suppose you could pretend to be a king when playing poker, but trust me the game plays better if you don't. Real human kings can do all kinds of things a card game won't let you. Pretending to be a king under the rules of Poker just doesn't satisfy. And that's because poker, chess, or even horse racing (the sport of kings) have nothing to do with roleplaying a king.

In the same way 4E doesn't represent actual characters because isn't about roleplaying kings either. Those pictures and fluff text are decorative. They have nothing to do with how you actually play the game under the rules. Because of them you don't need to roleplay when following the rules. It's not just not required, it's a time wasting activity slowing you down and others from reaching the "fun" of the game. The truth is the game rules play better if you stop trying to roleplay being another person and get on with following the rules of the game. Doing so will speed the game up measurably. And your fellow wargamers will stop laughing at you behind your back.

And I'm not saying this just so you can have more fun. If you've noticed, 4E is actually better if most everyone plays the game without roleplaying. Trying to find a reason for why your fictional, roleplayed character is "forgetting how to fight well" is just wasting your time here on the internet. Or worse, wasting game time when you should be playing. If you go and change the rules, it will likely only lead to a worse game. Not to mention your redesigning the game in a way the original designers never intended it be.

It's pretty obvious this stuff is not meant to be representative. The rule options you have don't match up to the flavor text. It's all vice versa. Good rules may have fluff written for it, not the other way around. Fluff is fluff. Purely unnecessary. Speaking using fluff will only confuse your DM and fellow players. You don't call it "the hotrod spicemaster when referring to the Jack of Spades. You show them the card or call it by its name. (You can see traditional playing cards are poorly named for rulesets, but as they're used for hundreds of rulesets it's not a big deal)

If 4E actually meant for you to roleplay the rules, they would have rewards or punishments for acting or speaking in character. If you thought in character, the rules wouldn't hinder you. Now if you think in character in 4th you're going to constantly be pushed out of it and back into thinking about what card to play next. Or in what 4E calls Powers or Skill choices.

If you really want to roleplay, you may want to find a game that actually supports it. Why don't you go play RIFTS or something`?

 

[MrGrenadine]

It's best not to think of 4E rules as representing a fictitious imaginary world. The rules aren't designed to do that. It's better to think of the options the rules give to each of the players as cards in a card game. As cards are played sequentially or simultaneously for a trick the whole game proceeds. There are lots of interesting options that cards can have. Using those options to beat other players, or in this case another team of players, can be lots of fun.

For example, look at Magic the Gathering...[EDIT]

If you really want to roleplay, you may want to find a game that actually supports it. Why don't you go play RIFTS or something`?

Please, please be kidding.

MrG