4E Muscles, BD&D Bones

[Dausuul]

Side versus side on initiative would be a good way to keep it simple and fast. The one drawback to 3E (and 4E) initiative is that the firm turn order can bog down player reactions. ...it depends on whether there is anything else you want to achieve. For example, if you want the early D&D flavor of initiative making spell casting risky, then that leads to different solutions than if you don't.

I've had mixed results with side versus side in 4E, but that might be due to the complexity of the system. Players ended up spending a ridiculous amount of time deciding who was going to do what, in what order. In a system with less crunch, there might be less incentive for that. Here's a thought: The DM and the player sitting to her left roll 1d20 for initiative, and whoever wins takes the first turn. After that, initiative goes clockwise around the table. (If you don't game at a table, figure out the nearest analogue for "clockwise" and use that.) Once all players have acted but before the DM's turn, the players can switch initiative positions if they so desire--physically swapping seats is optional.

I have a soft spot in my heart for the initiative/spellcasting thing, but it requires such a messy initiative system that I can't quite justify it on that basis alone. If anyone has ideas on how to keep initiative clean and quick while maintaining the danger of attacks interrupting spellcasting*, I'm all ears.

[size=-2]*Without using the words "readied attack."[/size]

Races, I think you've pretty much got to have dwarves and elves in some form. And if you do that, might as well have halflings too, in an RC clone. However, I don't see any problem in making them more generic in mechanics, and then having some optional flavor.

This is a good idea. Must ponder it more.

This however, seems like too much complexity, too recurring. Also, the whole N+1 thing is covering for something that could be mathematically simulated with a simpler model. If you really like the idea of the fighter getting to choose attacks, say that he gets N attacks all the time. He has to allocate how many go to a given target before he rolls. Some of these will miss, in any kind of tough fight. In an easy fight, who cares? The fighter benefit comes in that after he rolls, he can decide to allocate the misses to any relevant target.

My target hit rate is 70% for a same-level monster. That means that with two attacks a round, both will connect 49% of the time. "Some attacks will miss" is far from guaranteed.

I don't care about the fighter getting to choose attacks. What the N+1 thing is covering for is the lack of granularity involved in going from 1 attack to 2 attacks. If a fighter at level 11 gets one attack but a fighter at level 12 gets two, your damage output doubles in the space of one level, resulting in a massive power spike. Every edition of D&D that's involved multiple attacks has wrestled with this issue. None of the solutions (AD&D's "half attacks," 3E's iterative attacks) worked terribly well, until 4E came along and folded the whole thing into the power system. Sadly, the 4E power system does not translate well to a low-crunch design.

I've played with a bunch of different ideas to address the multi-attack problem. So far, "1+1" is the best I've come up with. It improves granularity; at a 70% hit rate, it's equivalent to 1.3 attacks per round. It's simple; even the most casual player should be able to grasp the idea of "roll two, pick one." It doesn't create incentives to regress; 2 attacks are strictly better than 1+1, so you'll never see players asking to go back to the lower-level version. And it doesn't require keeping track of how often you attacked last round.

The alternative would be to ditch the whole idea of multiple attacks and just hand out a flat damage bonus that scales with level. This has many advantages, and if "1+1" turns out to be too complicated, I might go with that instead. However, I like multiple attacks for a couple of reasons. One, they make high-level fighters feel more impressive. Two, they give fighters the option to split up their attacks--it's an option that will seldom be used, but it's handy against a mob of weenies. And three, they make it possible to predict how much damage any single attack will do, which makes the math easier when it comes to things like monsters with damage reduction and attacks versus objects.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Have you tried the math for something like N attacks, but a flat 1 always doesn't count, every level? I think if you can find a way to start the fighter with 2 attacks (3 rolls, discard low roll all the time), the progression will be fairly smooth.

Starting with a d8 damage die for comparison purposes, at RC-like chances to hit at 1st level, I think that won't be much higher than the old Str bonuses, which you are taking out. And it will certainly scale smoother.

 

[Dausuul]

Have you tried the math for something like N attacks, but a flat 1 always doesn't count, every level? I think if you can find a way to start the fighter with 2 attacks (3 rolls, discard low roll all the time), the progression will be fairly smooth.

Starting with a d8 damage die for comparison purposes, at RC-like chances to hit at 1st level, I think that won't be much higher than the old Str bonuses, which you are taking out. And it will certainly scale smoother.

At that point, I'd be willing to just go with 2 attacks --> 3 attacks --> 4 attacks, et cetera. A 50% increase in damage output is still quite a spike, but tolerable. The only problem with this approach is that it leads to something on the order of 9 attacks a round by 36th level.

(That reminds me, I should stagger the attack bonuses so you never get an increase to attack bonus at the same level your number of attacks goes up. Adjusting...)

 

[Votan]

Multiple Attacks. Fighters at higher levels can make more than one attack per round. Their number of attacks is as follows:

• Levels 1-5: 1
• Levels 6-11: 1+1
• Levels 12-17: 2
• Levels 18-23: 2+1
• Levels 24-27: 3
• Levels 28-31: 3+1
• Levels 32-35: 4
• Level 36: 4+1

You can roll all your attacks as a single standard action. When a number of attacks has "+1" after it, roll one extra attack die when you make your full complement of attacks. Discard one roll and keep the rest. For instance, if you have "2+1" attacks, make three attack rolls and keep two. (If you are attacking different targets, you must declare beforehand which rolls are aimed at which targets.)

I like the "+1" roll idea. It's simplifies combat more than the 3/2 attacks (which add to book-keeping for little benefit) and it is very intuitive.

Nice.

 

[KidSnide]

To me, the key features of BECMI/RC D&D are these:

• Stripped-down mechanics. The game offers a small array of "defined" tactical choices, with the expectation that the DM and players will build on them through creative and descriptive play. As such, the game is friendly to players who aren't all that into "crunch."
• Quick resolution. There should not be a pile of fiddly little modifiers getting thrown around. BECMI didn't always live up to this ideal, but it tried. (My rule of thumb: No temporary modifier smaller than 3 is worth the bother of tracking it.)
• A limited set of choices at chargen and level up.
• The classes are fighter, cleric, magic-user, thief. Elf, dwarf, and halfling are optional. Variants may exist, especially at high levels, but everything builds on the basic four.
• Low-level PCs are somewhat more fragile than in 4E. (They do not have to be as fragile as they are in straight-up BECMI, however!)
• The scope of the game widens as PCs advance, and the rules support that widening scope. For example: Dungeon adventuring (Basic), to wilderness exploration (Expert), to warfare and becoming vassal to a lord (Companion), to domain rulership and questing for immortality (Master). Master-level PCs still crawl dungeons from time to time, but it's just one part of a much larger world.
• Personal power increases at a fair clip in the first few levels, then plateaus upon reaching "name level." This is the same basic principle underlying the design of E6, and one I want to build on. PCs continue to advance past name level, but a 26th-level PC is not all that much stronger than a 16th-level one in a direct confrontation. The 26th-level PC's main advantage is versatility and a stronger position in the world (followers, allies, strongholds, etc.).

So, that's what I want to keep. I'm also trying to keep a general resemblance to BECMI D&D; 36 levels, 7 levels of cleric spells, 9 levels of M-U spells, all the classes have the same general outlines as the originals. (That said, I'm making Vancian casting an optional variant. The standard casting model will look like the sorceror from 3E. Vancian casting just grinds my gears.)

From 4E, I want to import:

• Balanced combat math. (Happily, my dad was a mathematician...)
• Class balance more or less constant across the level range. Lowbie M-Us are not pathetic weenies. High-level fighters do not become obsolete.
• The standard d20 core mechanic (1d20 + bonus versus DC).
• A small list of predefined conditions: Stunned, blinded, grabbed, etc.
• The scaling back of insta-kill mechanics. I'm not saying there can't be a handful of effects that just kill you dead right there, but they should be rare and fearsome. "Save versus poison or die" is a horrid mechanic that is justified neither by gameplay (instant arbitrary death makes a lousy game) nor by fiction (except cyanide and nerve gas, I don't know any poisons that take effect instantly).
• "Page 42"-type guidelines for handling stunts on the fly.
• Spells that eclipse other classes' abilities or wreak havoc with the game world have their usability limited; e.g., by ritual component costs.
• Special moves/tricks for fighters and thieves. This one I'm on the fence about; after all, I just said one of the attractions of BECMI is stripped-down mechanics! But I do feel that non-casters ought to have some tricks up their sleeves that don't rely on stunts.

This is exactly what I would want to see in a BECMI / 4e blend. I would give xp, but - apparently - I must spread it around...

-KS

 

[KidSnide]

Re: sorceror-like casters in 1erobably not, but let me explain the background I'm coming from.

So, I went back to slots...but made them spontaneous. If it's on your list or in your spellbook and you have a slot of that level available you can cast it, period.

I had some success with this when I was reworking 3.x to make it a closer fit to my gameworld. I took all arcane magic and provided a number of slots based on the wizards spells/day with bonus slots (and DCs) based on the character's Cha score (using the usual 3.x rules for bonus spells).

The number of spells in your book was determined off the same table, but the character could learn an additional number of spells based on the straight Int bonus.

So a 5th level character with an Int of 18 and a Cha of 16 could cast:
4 1st level spells
3 2nd level spells
2 3rd level spells

and would know:
7 1st level spells
6 2nd level spells
5 3rd level spells

I never quite went all the way to a universal magic system where # of spells known was based on Int, # of spells/day was based on Wis, save DCs was based on Cha, and the underlying spell list was determined by character class.

-KS

 

[Lanefan]

I have a soft spot in my heart for the initiative/spellcasting thing, but it requires such a messy initiative system that I can't quite justify it on that basis alone. If anyone has ideas on how to keep initiative clean and quick while maintaining the danger of attacks interrupting spellcasting*, I'm all ears.

Casting time is your friend.

We use d6 initiative - mostly re-rolled each round by all involved, by the way, specifically to break up the robotic sequence of repeating init's - and casting times have been rejigged to fit with a 6-segment round. So if you're a caster and roll 5 init., that's when you start; if your spell has a casting time of 3 segments you don't resolve until init. 2 and can be interrupted anytime between there.

Also, do away with "combat casting" or anything remotely similar*...and for fun, throw in a wild magic surge table for what happens when a spell is interrupted and magical energy is released in ways it shouldn't be... Put the risk back in magic use!

* - exception: war clerics casting battle-oriented spells e.g. Prayer must cast while in melee but cannot be interrupted unless killed, knocked out, or paralysed.

[MENTION=54710]KidSnide[/MENTION] - are any of those slots assignable by the player? In other words, could your example 5th level character with 4-3-2 slots be 5-2-2 if the player had made different choices? Or 4-3-1 or 5-3-2 depending on a bit of luck?

Lan-"I spent a lot of money on a Longsword: Wizardslayer for a reason"-efan

 

[KidSnide]

[MENTION=54710]KidSnide[/MENTION] - are any of those slots assignable by the player? In other words, could your example 5th level character with 4-3-2 slots be 5-2-2 if the player had made different choices? Or 4-3-1 or 5-3-2 depending on a bit of luck?

The slots aren't assignable, except to the extent to which that a character can use a 2nd level slot to cast a 1st level spell (etc...). Characters differentiated from one another based the spells they picked for their spellbook and their Int/Cha balance (Int/Wis balance for clerics).

Incidentally, as a game design matter, I think there is a tremendous value to allowing players to make character-design decisions regarding the types of powers/spells they can use. On the other hand, I think mechanical customization (fiddling with to hit modifiers or the number of spells/day) is of much lower value. I care mostly about giving players the tools to create the type of character they want in the game world, and much less about having players adjust the knobs of game balance.

-KS

 

[Dausuul]

Incidentally, as a game design matter, I think there is a tremendous value to allowing players to make character-design decisions regarding the types of powers/spells they can use. On the other hand, I think mechanical customization (fiddling with to hit modifiers or the number of spells/day) is of much lower value. I care mostly about giving players the tools to create the type of character they want in the game world, and much less about having players adjust the knobs of game balance.

Absolutely. This is one of the main things I like about BECMI, and part of what I want to focus on in this hybrid version. You define your character in broad strokes: Am I fighter, magic-user, cleric, thief? What weapons and armor do I use? What spells do I know? What god do I worship? What profession did I follow before, or after, I was an adventurer? What are my general strengths and weaknesses (ability scores)?

Players should focus on choosing these things, not on picking just the right combination of feats to maximize their damage output. Worrying about damage output is the designer's job.

 

[KidSnide]

Absolutely. This is one of the main things I like about BECMI, and part of what I want to focus on in this hybrid version. You define your character in broad strokes: Am I fighter, magic-user, cleric, thief?

Exactly. The one thing I don't like about BECMI is the Thief problem, where one of the four archtypes is defined by "being good at things outside of combat."

It may be unsolvable without deviating too much from the BECMI source material, but I would adopt some of the 3e/4e design conceits in which traditional thief skills were part of a (simple!) non-combat system and the Thief archtype received special maneuvers that let the character function in combat in a "tricky" capacity.

As just an initial thought concerning a simple non-combat system, I could imagine a list of "skills" (or areas of expertise) that provide a non-stacking +5 bonus to ability checks concerning that area. You'd need a starting list (the 4e skill list would be a start, but I might break arcana into schools of magic), but there'd be no rules other than a list of sample appropriate DCs. Characters pick a few at the start (based on class) and get more at relatively infrequent intervals. Maybe you can use two slots on the same skill to get a +8 instead of a +5?

-KS