D&D 4E 4e Clone − help create it!

Yaarel

He Mage
Foursome Human

Ability prerequisite: none
Exceptional array: +3, +2, +1, +0

Human features
Skill proficiency: any
Tool proficiency: any
Expertise: you gain expertise in a skill or tool that you have proficiency with but not yet expertise

Primary language: common

Human power
Feat: any novice feat that you qualify for
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Yaarel

He Mage
I need the skill math to cohere with the combat math. Combat math is tried and true, adapting and evolving since the origins of D&D. Combat math is robust and fair. 5e design innovates bounded accuracy. This sobriety to minimize bonuses to a d20 roll has many benefits. But it is a fragile ecology. Designers must persist in the effort to avoid adding new bonuses. The combat math works. There is less benefit from deviating from the combat math. Skills happen abundantly in combat, whether grappling or stealth, resolving improvisational stunts, gaining advantage from creature lore, detecting invisible foes, and other ways that skills prove ubiquitous in combat. Adjudication of combat stats and adjudication of skill stats need to follow the same simple principles and expectations of difficulty, especially to adjudicate on the fly. The multiplicative expertise bonus violates the design principles of D&D 5e.

I seek to rethink what ‘expertise’ means. Something different than number porn. If the purpose of the Rogue expertise is to autowin a skill check, then just say this. ‘Once per rest, you automatically win one d20 roll for a skill that you have expertise with.’ If the purpose of expertise is to make the expert more reliable with skill checks, there are ways to do this without rupturing bounded accuracy. For example, a d20 roll that is less than 10 counts as 10.

Really, one needs to look at combat math. What combat improvements seem acceptable within bounded accuracy? There is advantage or rerolls. There is Elven Accuracy that rerolls one if advantage. The +2 archery fighting style. The +d4 Bless bonus. The +d6 Bardic Inspiration bonus. To be sure, these bonuses strain bounded accuracy, and complaints exist because of combinations. Rerolls remain more stable.

A central skill will already have a +5 bonus, from a +3 ability and a +2 proficiency. At the master tier, this improves to a +10 bonus.

The DM needs to routinely adjudicate challenges for an expert character, that still remain possible for the other characters that are nonexperts to attempt.



For now, expertise, allows the expert to reroll a d20 for a skill that one is expert in. So, if the expert gains a situational advantage, one of the two d20 rolls can be rerolled.
 
Last edited:

Xaelvaen

Stuck in the 90s
I seek to rethink what ‘expertise’ means. Something different than number porn. If the purpose of the Rogue expertise is to autowin a skill check, then just say this. ‘Once per rest, you automatically win one d20 roll for a skill that you have expertise with.’ If the purpose of expertise is to make the expert more reliable with skill checks, there are ways to do this without rupturing bounded accuracy. For example, a d20 roll that is less than 10 counts as 10.

Not sure if it's appropriate for your vision, but in our 5E home games, I converted expertise to the old proficiency dice system in the playtest material for 5E. +2 = 1d4, +3 = 1d6, and so forth. That way it makes the skill reliable, and very rarely 'doubles' the skill. I know my rogues rather enjoy the change - something fun about dropping in a different die with the d20 to roll.
 


Yaarel

He Mage
i like this thinking its nice if you can do context overlap... how much value should that skill check be in combat?

Hopefully the math for skill check is identical with the math for a combat attack. In this way, players can freely use skills in combat in a way that is ‘fair’, and DMs can easily adjudicate narrative surprises. Alternatively, breaking down a door can be an attack in a noncombat scenario.

For this reason, any bonus that improves a skill check must also be available in combat.

The basic concern is:

What does ‘expertise’ with a sword look like?

What is its math?
 

Yaarel

He Mage
Not sure if it's appropriate for your vision, but in our 5E home games, I converted expertise to the old proficiency dice system in the playtest material for 5E. +2 = 1d4, +3 = 1d6, and so forth. That way it makes the skill reliable, and very rarely 'doubles' the skill. I know my rogues rather enjoy the change - something fun about dropping in a different die with the d20 to roll.

I might do something like this after all for expertise.

But since the average of 1d4 is 2 (rather 2.5), I am unsure how it helps the math.

If someone has ‘expertise’ with a sword, it seems imbalancing in combat if adding a +1d12 expertise bonus to the attack by a ‘master’ swordfighter on top of whose proficiency is already +6.



As mentioned earlier, I am tentatively going with expertise being a reroll of the d20. In other words, this makes the expert more reliable, but less than superhuman.

Alternatively, the Bard routinely adds a +1d6 and the Bless spell a +1d4, and no one seems to be complaining about this (too much).

If going this route, the Bard and the Bless would explicitly be an ‘expertise bonus’ thus unable to stack with an expertise skill bonus, if any.



Again the balanced math for expertise boils down to the possibility of ‘sword expertise’.

Note, the Archery fighting style effectively adds a +2 expertise bonus to bow attacks. This can easily be a +1d4 for players who like to roll dice. By itself, the Archery bonus is no problem. But in combination with other bonuses, there are number of complaints. So the Foursome system needs to eliminate the ‘untyped’ bonuses, and assign one from a mathematically manageable handful of bonus types. Same type cannot stack with itself.
 

Yaarel

He Mage
In the Original Post.

• I added a section called Styles and Realms [[≈ 4e Sources]].

• I statted the wood elf.

Check these out.




The purpose of the design of the wood elf is to compare with the design of the human.

Because all races use ability prerequisites, rather than ability boosts, abilities are no longer an issue when balancing races with each other. Every race, human or otherwise, arranges the same ‘heroic array’: +3, +2, +1, +0. The only difference is, it is impossible for a player to assign the +0 to the Dexterity of a wood elf character.

With abilities no longer a balance worry, the design space that remains for other race features is beefy. Every race design has a chassis that is equal to three halffeats.

A feat is exactly equal to an ability bonus improvement by +1. A feat is worth two halffeats. A halffeat is worth roughly four skill proficiencies. Or sometimes a halffeat seems worth about two extra-good proficiencies, such as a martial weapon or a spell cantrip. A halffeat also seams worth a spell from the second spell level, such as Darkvision or Misty Step per rest, or equivalently telepathy. Tho note, Darkvision seems more comparable to a cantrip, thus half a halffeat.

During the zero levels of the Advancement table, the Race level is worth one halffeat. Then the Feat level is commandeered for the race powers. Humans choose an actual feat. The wood elf gets assigned two halffeats: Elven Accuracy and Fleet of Foot. The accuracy is a nod to the 4e wood elf, and it balances with the 5e Elven Accuracy (half)feat. I am happy how this works out, both beefy like 4e and low level like 5e.

In 5e, the intention of the elf Trance rules is to use vague language that under scrutiny is mechanically useless. By contrast, the effort to speak clearly about mechanics of Trance results in a potent elf feature. The Trance is a short rest (namely one hour). The elf is fully aware of the surroundings, and can keep guard while others sleep. An elf is immune to the Unconscious condition, thus the Sleep spell that inflicts it fails to work. By implication, an elf is always conscious unless destroyed.

All of the races equal each other in abilities and power. The human race tends to have more free choice. So character optimizers might prefer the human. I am fine with this. I prefer a more human centric setting. The versatility expresses the flavor of human learning and individuation.

In sum, the zero levels for race and feat allow a design space of three halffeats. This amount is substantial to cover an assemblage of significant abilities and powers that can prevent the different races from feeling ‘samey’.



In addition to the race and feat levels, the skill level and class levels can often even more design space to elaborate a race design concept.

The skill level supplies the ‘livelihood’ [[profession, background]]. Each race will have its own cultures and each culture its own unique livelihoods. I have in mind the ‘Grugach culture’ of the wood elf. Thus players can choose among livelihoods such as: ‘Grugach trapper’ who makes pit and snares to capture animals. ‘Cooshee trainer’ who raises and trains the Grugach elf dogs. And so on. There can be ‘Griffon riders’ and ‘unicorn knights’ in the ‘Gray culture’ of high elves. Drow females versus Drow males.

Each culture needs its own institutions that exist outside of combat. Use the skill levels of the Advancement table to spell out the stats for these.

When it comes to race specializations in combat, there can even be ‘race as class’. The zero levels include the talent level and the class level. For example, the Fighter class will use these two levels for basic Fighter abilities, such as martial weapon proficiencies. A race class can instead use these two levels for other features that are more pertinent to the race, such as high elf Elven Archer, so as to pick up bow proficiency and a cantrip or so instead of heavy armor proficiency. After this, the Elven Archer can go from there to the remaining Fighter levels or the remaining Wizard levels. Think of a race class as a kind of prestige class that can be a tweak at levels here and there, or a full class, depending on what the concept requires.



So race design includes a race level with a halffeat and a feat level for a full feat for a substantial race feature. Find the race skills and institutions separately in the skill level. If further race design space is necessary for special combat, then create a race class. All of these four levels are in the zero levels. They give designers lots of room to flesh out a race or culture concept. At the same time, the result will moreorless balance alongside standard 5e characters.
 
Last edited:

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
NPCs usually get a defeated condition instead of dying. Only important distinction once in a while and you might specify it on the creature.

A swarm which is defeated is like a defeated army they are scattered or in retreat depending on the quality of leadership) and maybe a diplomacy or intimidate might force them back together in a manner similar to a heal check.
 

Xaelvaen

Stuck in the 90s
I might do something like this after all for expertise.

We are right now experimenting with a similar system, where you can roll a limited number of d6s (daily resource) to add to a d20 roll. The rule is, it literally increases what the dice counts as, and like a true d20, it cannot roll higher than 20.

That might help you in the design for expertise. So if your proficiency is 5 (d10), you roll the d10, add it to the d20, capped at 20. Then you add all your static numbers as usual. At level 20, this lets you have a small chance (1 in 12) to turn an 8 into a 20. Still helps preserve bounded accuracy, and gives some 'reliability' without quite the same power as Advantage.
 

Yaarel

He Mage
That might help you in the design for expertise. So if your proficiency is 5 (d10), you roll the d10, add it to the d20, capped at 20. Then you add all your static numbers as usual. At level 20, this lets you have a small chance (1 in 12) to turn an 8 into a 20. Still helps preserve bounded accuracy, and gives some 'reliability' without quite the same power as Advantage.

Earlier, I didnt realize that the total of the d20 + expertise caps at 20. I like the way it stays within bounded accuracy. Essentially, the approach increases 20s while still allowing 2s to be possible.



I went to Anydice.com to see what the stats look like. The formula for the output is:

[lowest of (d20 + d4) and 20] + 2

The bolded number on the right is the proficiency bonus, and the bolded die on the left is the expertise bonus.

I have an image of the graphs for when the proficiency bonuses are 2, 4, and 6.



Expertise d4.png
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top