D&D 4E Throwing ideas, seeing what sticks (and what stinks)

[AbdulAlhazred]

I really like the idea of the cards also having a weight - so you play two cards: one as effect, and one as weight (I really have to find a better word). That would work with a one deck game...

But I'm still holding on to the idea of two decks for now - there's a picture starting to form in my head (and there are 2 different card types in it )
- 20 power cards and 20 weight cards (numbered 1 to 20)
- you draw 5 cards of each type
- you play 4 rounds
- you shuffle back [encounter] and [at-will] power cards into the deck after every round
- you shuffle back your weight cards after every round
- you're only allowed one [encounter] type card per round (if you play 2, the second one is void)

Not sure this would really work (pretty high variance) - but you get a "d20" of sorts, an AED thingy.

Now all that's left is creating 20 cards for every class! Pfft! Easy peasy!

Eh, now see, I'm not so sure I want to emulate d20/4e with it, not THAT closely. I'd rather see it as somewhat of a strategy game of its own. That is, what do you play and what do you hold onto? There might be an inducement for playing the 'lower value' cards. Maybe you simply get a specific mix of different values, depending on your level (etc). So the equivalent of an 'at-will' is a card you can have say 8 of in your deck, but it they have a modest effect/weight.

Another option is cards each have an inherent weight, but they they are offense/defense values. So you can play something that is heavily offensive, heavily defensive, kind of a mix, or etc. Maybe specific special cards have better values against certain other types of cards. Again, you could have 'kickers' and 'counters'.

I'd say that your deck has to last you the encounter, though maybe some cards are 'daily' and can't be shuffled back in until you get a long rest or something like that. OTOH I'm not sure you need that mechanism, a card that makes up 1 in 40 of a deck would be hard to rely on, and come up relatively rarely, but would still be a big signature move. Obviously you'd have to consider your cards to be more 'plot coupon' than indicators of some option you always have. You could play that up in card design too.

Maybe there could also be 'fortune' cards that would be a type of, or the main type of, kicker that you could drop, that might supply the function of the 'weight' card as you've described it. So you can build a character with few different moves, but a lot of fortune, or one with more moves and less fortune.

I could definitely see this kind of thing working well for say a 'swashbuckler' kind of game where PCs duel and do lots of crazy stunts and whatever, and the plot is heavily extemporized during play. Cards would let you pull stuff out of your hat. "No! I'm not run through by the Count's Blade, I play 4 fortune, he's disarmed and I flee!" Very much like other diceless systems that use some sort of currency for that kind of thing.

 

[Cyvris]

The card system idea is...interesting, if a little odd. Reminds me a good deal of the Crusader from Book of Nine Swords. It could be interesting to tie class features to it in some way even. Various control effects, damage, or marks. Might be a bit too swingy though.

After dipping into 5e, I've come back to 4e with fresh eyes and really want to start making it "work" in new ways. My biggest goal would be to bring 5e's bounded accuracy to 4e since I like it, but I've been dabbling in some other major changes that I think could sort of help the system out and punch up the non-combat half of it.

-Condense redundant At-wills across power sources, and let characters pick from that pool (Martial characters can all get "Twin Strike", or Ranger and Fighter can).

-Perhaps take a bit from the Runepriest design space and make certain spells/abilities modifiable on the fly, no more "Freezing Burst", instead it's "Arcane Burst" with the option to deal Frost, Fire, Lightning or Psychic damage, each granting a specific bonus. This could apply with weapons as well, which could encourage Martial characters to carry around multiple sets of gear.

- Condense Encounter/Daily powers to a single pool of 10-12 by tier. Characters pick 2 at first level, but can still only use 1 per encounter. Add more at the normal 4e levels 3/7, ending in a total of 4 known, but only 3 that can be used. I'm borrowing from the Essential's Mage for this, though pushing it a bit further, again to hack back on bloat. Craziest form would see characters sharing some of them across classes, which would really kill bloat.

-Automatically grant Skill Powers if the character is trained in the skill and of the appropriate level

-Introduce more Rituals and Martial Practices. All characters are granted "Ritual Points" that let them cast a ritual for free, these would scale by level

-Eliminate most feats, instead offering them as a form of "Class Feature". Druid Form Feats? Fighter Weapon Feats? Far better as interesting class options that sort of echo the "Apprentice, Expert, Master" bonuses the Essential's Mage has. WotC seriously made some good design choices with that class in terms of "Gain features as you level".

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I really like the idea of the cards also having a weight - so you play two cards: one as effect, and one as weight (I really have to find a better word). That would work with a one deck game...

But I'm still holding on to the idea of two decks for now - there's a picture starting to form in my head (and there are 2 different card types in it )
- 20 power cards and 20 weight cards (numbered 1 to 20)...

Amusingly, I just this autumn created a strategy card game based on Magic, and ended up splitting the traditional deck into two: the Library (spell cards) and the Journal (lands)!

Not much else to say, other than that I heartily approve of any idea that combines cards and D&D.

 

[MoutonRustique]

On a completely different subject:
What would be the consequences of changing the 4e move action into a regular action (i.e. you get 2 standard actions per round) ?
Just how stupid-broken would that make everything?
What possible adjustments could make it palatable?

First consequences I see:
- dramatically increase the cost of moving (especially for ranged characters)
[corollary] - incentive to static 3e-inspired slug-fests
- dramatically increase the threat posed by ranged characters
- dramatically increase nova options
- [charge] becomes even more of a problem (i.e. it's a problem for me - I know it isn't a "real" one for the game as a whole)
- fewer rounds (if math and encounter building left as-is)

Potential solutions/bandages:
- "artificial" limit of one encounter or daily power per turn
- remove [charge] (I have a beef with [charge], in case you missed it...)
- adding a "prepare ammo" thing for ranged characters (?)

Benefits:
- streamlined action economy description
- possible reduction of consideration time at the table


On a second completely different subject: removing OA when you move away from the foe.

Why? running away from an opponent is a pretty good way to avoid getting stabbed...
What does it add in terms of complexity? not all that much really... The wording for AO will be a bit more verbose, but the principal is pretty easy to understand and apply.
What does it change? it makes everyone a good deal less sticky
What does it break? at least a few [Defender] abilities would need adapting or complete overhauls...
Weird thing I just realized: If you have 2 foes with 2 squares between them that you want to "punch through", you can avoid AO from both by moving in a zigzag pattern (as you're always moving [away] from them). This makes for a very cool-looking movement pattern, but is kinda stretching it a bit far in terms of the intent of the change...

 

[MoutonRustique]

The card system idea is...interesting, if a little odd. Reminds me a good deal of the Crusader from Book of Nine Swords. It could be interesting to tie class features to it in some way even. Various control effects, damage, or marks. Might be a bit too swingy though.

After dipping into 5e, I've come back to 4e with fresh eyes and really want to start making it "work" in new ways. My biggest goal would be to bring 5e's bounded accuracy to 4e since I like it, but I've been dabbling in some other major changes that I think could sort of help the system out and punch up the non-combat half of it.

-Condense redundant At-wills across power sources, and let characters pick from that pool (Martial characters can all get "Twin Strike", or Ranger and Fighter can).

-Perhaps take a bit from the Runepriest design space and make certain spells/abilities modifiable on the fly, no more "Freezing Burst", instead it's "Arcane Burst" with the option to deal Frost, Fire, Lightning or Psychic damage, each granting a specific bonus. This could apply with weapons as well, which could encourage Martial characters to carry around multiple sets of gear.

- Condense Encounter/Daily powers to a single pool of 10-12 by tier. Characters pick 2 at first level, but can still only use 1 per encounter. Add more at the normal 4e levels 3/7, ending in a total of 4 known, but only 3 that can be used. I'm borrowing from the Essential's Mage for this, though pushing it a bit further, again to hack back on bloat. Craziest form would see characters sharing some of them across classes, which would really kill bloat.

-Automatically grant Skill Powers if the character is trained in the skill and of the appropriate level

-Introduce more Rituals and Martial Practices. All characters are granted "Ritual Points" that let them cast a ritual for free, these would scale by level

-Eliminate most feats, instead offering them as a form of "Class Feature". Druid Form Feats? Fighter Weapon Feats? Far better as interesting class options that sort of echo the "Apprentice, Expert, Master" bonuses the Essential's Mage has. WotC seriously made some good design choices with that class in terms of "Gain features as you level".

Well, at least you started out small.

But on a more serious note, as to the bolded part (using bounded accuracy in 4e), I've come to the following conclusions:
1- (bad news) it's not going to work ... :'(
2- (very good news) it already works! ... whaaa?

The Nerverwinter book has show us the path and the way! [Preach!]

IMO, the best way to get that bounded accuracy feel is the following:
- completely decouple level progression from battle-xp (or anything other than goal/quest xp really)
- de-level everything into a tighter level range (by "elite-ing" and "solo-ing" creatures you want to be associated with "This Dangerous!")
- revamp the ritual system so that the strongest rituals you want to enter your game do so (for instance, I've divided the required level by 2 - the way most rituals work, I feel pretty confident in saying you won't really break anything before hitting Epic level rituals. And even then...)
- close your eyes, take a deep breath... and really, really try to ignore the number of levels stated in the books (I know this is the hardest one for me...)

The "run-away" leveling the WotC adventures taught us is, IMO, the main culprit in feeding the "number treadmill". On the whole, monsters are so easy to up-and-down-level, there's no real reason for most of them to have the level that they do.

There's also a sort of weird human-based thing that happened: they can't produce every humanoid at the same level. Thus, we get a certain "ranking" of humanoids with each kind appearing at a given level-range. This strongly reinforces the kobold-goblin-orc-gnoll-ogre-troll, and the fact that there are easy numbers next to them really reinforces (again!) the idea that they should be used now and then discarded for the next "evolution" so-to-speak.

Ok, this has turned into a meandering rant... this wasn't my intent, and I've got stuff to do! Damn ranting fingers!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

On a completely different subject:
What would be the consequences of changing the 4e move action into a regular action (i.e. you get 2 standard actions per round) ?
Just how stupid-broken would that make everything?
What possible adjustments could make it palatable?

First consequences I see:
- dramatically increase the cost of moving (especially for ranged characters)
[corollary] - incentive to static 3e-inspired slug-fests
- dramatically increase the threat posed by ranged characters
- dramatically increase nova options
- [charge] becomes even more of a problem (i.e. it's a problem for me - I know it isn't a "real" one for the game as a whole)
- fewer rounds (if math and encounter building left as-is)

Potential solutions/bandages:
- "artificial" limit of one encounter or daily power per turn
- remove [charge] (I have a beef with [charge], in case you missed it...)
- adding a "prepare ammo" thing for ranged characters (?)

Benefits:
- streamlined action economy description
- possible reduction of consideration time at the table


On a second completely different subject: removing OA when you move away from the foe.

Why? running away from an opponent is a pretty good way to avoid getting stabbed...
What does it add in terms of complexity? not all that much really... The wording for AO will be a bit more verbose, but the principal is pretty easy to understand and apply.
What does it change? it makes everyone a good deal less sticky
What does it break? at least a few [Defender] abilities would need adapting or complete overhauls...
Weird thing I just realized: If you have 2 foes with 2 squares between them that you want to "punch through", you can avoid AO from both by moving in a zigzag pattern (as you're always moving [away] from them). This makes for a very cool-looking movement pattern, but is kinda stretching it a bit far in terms of the intent of the change...

If you make move into a Standard and then basically outlaw most useful standard action powers from being used in the second 'standard' action, what have you gained? I guess there may be a few obscure things that you can do with this, but it seems relatively pointless to me. If you ALLOW any old attack power in the 2nd action, then I think you will find that the game will become much more static and amount to 'move in and slug it out' for the same reasons that 3.x fell prey to. There's also a lot more swinginess. Whomever first makes contact with the enemy gets one attack, then the other guy gets 2 return shots, enough to kill outright. It would be a weird and rather counterproductive situation IMHO.

As for the breaking off without OA thing. You've already found the issue, it really just reduces stickiness, people will find ways to 'retreat' in a forward direction! Also you can already break off without an OA, you simply have to shift away in your move action, and then move in your standard action. If you really need to haul ass out of there you can burn an AP and double move after your shift. OR you can double/triple move without shifting and risk the OA. I'm not sure why you want to both remove that tactical choice AND add in more funky and counter intuitive 'tactics'.

So, I wouldn't personally care for either of these options in 4e.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, at least you started out small.

But on a more serious note, as to the bolded part (using bounded accuracy in 4e), I've come to the following conclusions:
1- (bad news) it's not going to work ... :'(
2- (very good news) it already works! ... whaaa?

The Nerverwinter book has show us the path and the way! [Preach!]

IMO, the best way to get that bounded accuracy feel is the following:
- completely decouple level progression from battle-xp (or anything other than goal/quest xp really)
- de-level everything into a tighter level range (by "elite-ing" and "solo-ing" creatures you want to be associated with "This Dangerous!")
- revamp the ritual system so that the strongest rituals you want to enter your game do so (for instance, I've divided the required level by 2 - the way most rituals work, I feel pretty confident in saying you won't really break anything before hitting Epic level rituals. And even then...)
- close your eyes, take a deep breath... and really, really try to ignore the number of levels stated in the books (I know this is the hardest one for me...)

The "run-away" leveling the WotC adventures taught us is, IMO, the main culprit in feeding the "number treadmill". On the whole, monsters are so easy to up-and-down-level, there's no real reason for most of them to have the level that they do.

There's also a sort of weird human-based thing that happened: they can't produce every humanoid at the same level. Thus, we get a certain "ranking" of humanoids with each kind appearing at a given level-range. This strongly reinforces the kobold-goblin-orc-gnoll-ogre-troll, and the fact that there are easy numbers next to them really reinforces (again!) the idea that they should be used now and then discarded for the next "evolution" so-to-speak.

Ok, this has turned into a meandering rant... this wasn't my intent, and I've got stuff to do! Damn ranting fingers!

Eh, I do agree with you that 30 levels is a lot, HoML has 20 levels instead. I think that 4e has no real issue with 'humanoid ranking', there are loads of creatures out there of all levels, kobolds of 8th level for instance! They are obviously not 'rank-and-file' creatures, that high level kobold probably won't show up with other kobolds, or maybe just a few minionized ones. Likewise with orcs, goblins, etc. Often there are interesting versions of a variety of levels, such that you don't really have to abide by a hierarchy. I won't say the hierarchy is DEAD, kobolds are, as a rule, weaker than ogres for instance. OTOH it was absolute back in AD&D days, ALL kobolds had 1/2 HD and all ogres had 4+4 HD. There could be chiefs or whatever, but they were firmly attached to their groups, not separate higher level individuals that showed up on their own. I think 4e is a lot more open in this sense, personally.

 

[Tony Vargas]

On a second completely different subject: removing OA when you move away from the foe.

Why? running away from an opponent is a pretty good way to avoid getting stabbed...

Well, getting stabbed in the face, getting stabbed in the back, OTOH....

...Historically, the side that broke and ran got slaughtered.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

...Historically, the side that broke and ran got slaughtered.

TBH though I suspect that's less a factor of the immediate tactical disadvantage of retreating and had more to do with fear and panic and being herded into spots where you could be trapped and pushed together with 1000's of other men, and then just butchered. TRUTHFULLY, what I have seen of reenactments (admittedly not totally reliable stuff) is that its not that hard to disengage, you can make a feint or back off under cover of a strong attack. Your opponent CAN press you, but its not always very effective. However, I also think that 4e's existing mechanics reflect that adequately. The retreating party first uses a shift to get clear, which could easily represent a quick feint or something, and then moves away normally. Also rather realistically, you kind of need something covering you to really get away clean in the end, some zone or some ranged attacks to tie up the pursuit before it gets going, or at least delay it a couple actions until you can double move to freedom.

 

[MoutonRustique]

Everything you guys are saying is true. Still, I like to ask.

As to the humanoid ranking thing - I was talking more about the perception that I've often seen vehicled (how is this not the word I want? I was so certain it was...) about this with regards to 4e (whilst I've never really seen it for other editions). I agree that 4e offers the easiest spread of villains w/o resorting to things like PC levels and such.

But there is this effect in the published adventures (as in other editions IIRC) where you fight your humanoids in order and they often don't make any sort of comeback. I don't really know why it drew the derision it did this time around - or perhaps I was overly exposed to that particular criticism... ?