All Fours: the Rule of Fours? the Game of Fours?

[knightofround]

I wrote something similiar awhile ago, but in 3s instead of 4s:

Abilities
Strength
Endurance
Dexterity
Intelligence
Wisdom
Charisma

Traits:
Fortitude: Higher of Strength or Endurance
Reflex: Higher of Dexterity or Intelligence
Will: Higher of Wisdom or Charisma

Each archaetype makes attacks vs 2 defenses
Defender/Fighter: Fortitude and Reflex. Reflex to hit, Fortitude to damage.
Leader/Priest: Will and Fortitude. Will to hit, Fortitude to damage.
Striker/Mage/Thief: Reflex and Will. Reflex to hit, Will to damage.

Ex: Fighter attacks a Mage with a sword. Both the Fighter and Mage make opposing Reflex rolls. Fighter wins, so the attack is classified as a hit. Next the Fighter and Mage make opposing Fortitude rolls. Fighter wins, so the attack has 2x the normal effect. In this case, its HP damage. But if it were a spell or prayer instead it might have 2x the duration, 2x the penalty on the enemy, or 2x the benefit for a nearby ally.

I like this rock-paper-scissors arrangement because each class has a targetable weakness, but they also have a good secondary stat that will prevent them from getting obliterated. It makes stuff like both Dex and Int based Defenders equally viable mechanically in combat, while still allowing for flavor in the realm of skills and ability checks.

The downside though is that it would be hassle to make 1-2 opposing rolls per combat action, instead of just 1 roll vs a static defensive number. Powergamers will arrange it so their top 3 stats cover all 3 defenses.

It is unfortunate that an Str/End fighter is mechanically weaker than an Str/Dex character, for example. But you can punish that by setting harsh ability requirements for feats etc, so there will be a reason for defenders to have both Str and End. Without there being stats that *everybody* needs, like Dex and Con in all editions of D&D.

 

[steeldragons]

In reflecting on some of the comments here, particularly [I believe it was] Hassassin's statement about "weapon proficiency v. alternate skills", I was reminded in one of the old original D&D books (in the front of the 1e PHB I think) about the many different definitions/clarifications for the use of the term "Level".

It occurred to me that the various abilities a character might have/choose might better be served by "repackaging" the terminology...not to mention bundles into another nice little block of Four that might be more disgestable for players.

So, instead of Weapon Proficiencies, Non-weapon Skills/Proficienies, General Skills, Class Abilities, Feat, Powers, etc. etc...You just have various categories of "Skills". Which, really, was what I was doing anyway. But the different titles for everything does seem to get potentially confusing/overwhelming for beginning play.

So, you'd role your abilities, pick race and class (not necessarily in that order) and then you go about selecting your starting "Skills", as follows.
[Note: The order in which I am listing them is based off a sense of what are most likely to be "most to least often used"...generally speaking.]

Weapon Skills: What weapon(s) you are proficient in/can use without any "to hit" penalty. Of course, anyone can pick up any weapon and swing it around, but if you are not proficient with it you suffer a standard -4 penalty to hit. Obviously, this Skill is directly related to Combat situations. The number of Skill points/slots you have to start is determined by class and increases with level (at various speeds depending on class).

Innate Skills: These are the skills outlined under each Class that a PC receives, automatically, within their given profession (class). Some are useful for combat, some are not, but it can be sure that anyone of a particular adventuring occupation will possess these Skills. All Thieves get starting Thief Skills, all MUs can "Read Magic" and cast spells, all Fighters can XYZ, etc. No Skill Points are required to have these skills, though some do allow SPs to be added to them to increase their effectiveness as the character gains levels/increases in power.

Class Skills: These are skills that, while being class-dependent lists, are chosen by the player. You receive a starting amount of Skill Points/slots (possibly increased/decreased by your high/low Intellect score) and accrued as you increase in level. Many, but not all, Class Skills convey bonuses or special tricks that can be/are related to or useful in Combat. Others may be important for/useful in other non-combat scenarios that inevitably occur during a life of adventuring. This is where the player can begin to tailor their character to be a "bookish, know-it-all wizard" vs. an "above average, powerful spell-blaster" or the "devastating damage-doling fighter, specialized with his battle axe" vs. "an agile armored shield-basher [extra high AC], always out to 'protect the innocent'", etc.

General Skills: These are lists of skills that are not Class dependent. They are normal day-to-day skills, tricks, and abilities that anyone can learn (with the SPs to spend on them). They are, generally, not related to Combat, but may prove useful in other elements of game play. So, your thief might be an expert jewelry maker/gem-cutter and have an interest/hobby in Ancient Religions and History. The Cleric may be a savant when it comes to Languages but might also have a passing knowledge of Astrology or be well-versed in (perhaps have an addiction to?) Gambling/games of chance. The MU might have spent some time learning Blacksmithing to eventually fulfill her dream of forging magical weapons someday. While the Fighter from the rural farming village has been very conscious in his travels through strange lands to learn Geography and the finer points of "Persuasion" and Diplomacy among the higher rungs of society.

Through a mixing and matching (not a "min-ing and max-ing" ) of these four categories of Skills any player may tailor their PC to just about any concept (or at least close to for the purposes of Levels 1-4) they want to come up with.

So, I'm now imagining a "basic" beginner's All-Four's Character Sheet that would look somethin' like this.

Name
Race/Gender
Class/Level
HP
AC

(Abilities)
Strength
Dexterity
Intellect
Presence

Skill Points (SP):
Weapon Skills (WS)
Innate Skills (IS)
Class Skills (CS)
General Skills (GS)

[EDIT] (Defenses)
Physical (vs. those attacks that neglect/negate armor-AC)
Fortitude (poison, exhaustion, "constitution-based" stuff)
Reflex (Dex-based stuff)
Will (Presence-based, mind-effecting magics n' stuff)

Forgot Defenses. heh heh. oops.[/EDIT]

That's pretty much all you need. Obviously then, Thieves have their Thieves Abilities, MUs have their spells (allotment and spellbook/list), Clerics have their spell allotment and maybe their Turning Undead numbers if the player wants them/doesn't want to have to look it up, etc.
But the core of the character is just those 4 blocks of Fours (not counting the name, obviously)

Does that seem to be a bit too much/confusing for a new player?

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Not too confusing.. altho the one question I have is how to bridge between skills and 'feats' {the ability to do something cool with a skill}

One idea is to have 'feats' be the skill points. So you gain the feat 'weapon training Long Sword' which gives you 1 skill point in 'swing long sword' and negates the non-proficient bonus
Then you could get the 'Defensive Stance' that gives you 1 more skill point in 'swing long sword' and adds your skill points to your defenses when you take the stance.
Etc... so your skill check would drive from your stat and the number of tricks you have learned.

The Fighter class could have an innate feat of 'weapon master' that grants training for all weapons, making that class the true standout when it comes to combat. Other classes would have to purchase weapon training for each weapon {or have an innate set of weapons}


And you definitely need to separate the combat skills from the noncombat skills... having them come from the same pool of resources will cause a horrible slant and a delta between characters.

Oh, and Innate should come from both class, upbringing, background and race

 

[steeldragons]

Not too confusing.. altho the one question I have is how to bridge between skills and 'feats' {the ability to do something cool with a skill}

<invoke best "possessed Sigorney Weaver" voice> "There is no 'Feats' only 'Skills.'"</invoke>



Thus we venture into the precariously balanced realm of "The All-Fours Game sits on the edge of a knife. Falter but a little and it will fail." The legendary "Wicket of Stickiness" between playstyles. IOW, How much/what to incorporate from 3e for a "simplified" game?

My own decades of pre-3e experience has shown me over and over again that "Feats" are not at all necessary, as pinpointed prescribed "rules", for a character "do something cool."

One idea is to have 'feats' be the skill points. So you gain the feat 'weapon training Long Sword' which gives you 1 skill point in 'swing long sword' and negates the non-proficient bonus.

That is an intriguing concept. However, I feel, that delves way too far into the area of minutia than I am interested in incorporating. As I've presented, someone choosing the Longsword as one of their Weapon Skills (proficiencies) can use a longsword. I don't see a need for additional "rules" (separate "feats") to know how to swing a long sword.

Then you could get the 'Defensive Stance' that gives you 1 more skill point in 'swing long sword' and adds your skill points to your defenses when you take the stance.
Etc... so your skill check would drive from your stat and the number of tricks you have learned.

I see what you're getting at...and yes, things would stack/work something like this...though I doubt I would include anything called "Defensive Stance" and, again, see no reason a whole separate category of bookkeeping "Feats" is required. But yeah, you could take various skills to add to your to hit and/or damage and/or add to your AC.

The Fighter class could have an innate feat of 'weapon master' that grants training for all weapons, making that class the true standout when it comes to combat.

Ehm...that isn't what the Fighter is already...by definition? I was already thinking of a Skill for "Weapon Mastery" (functioning similar to ye olde "Specialization"). Gives a +1 to hit and damage and then increases, regardless of Strength, as the PC gains levels (going up +1 every other level, I think I said, to a max of +4 at 7th). It might even be an "innate" skill for Fighters (or I might move it there), I don't quite recall just now. And the other Skills they have to choose from will reflect/offer bonuses to their combat effectiveness moreso than other classes.

Other classes would have to purchase weapon training for each weapon {or have an innate set of weapons}

They already do have innate sets of weapons available to them. The Fighter is the only class (of these beginner original 4) that has access to any weapon.

And you definitely need to separate the combat skills from the noncombat skills... having them come from the same pool of resources will cause a horrible slant and a delta between characters.

Elaborate please. I fail to see why...other than just having more/separate lists.

Players who want their characters to focus on being good at combat will choose skills that do that. THose that want to develop their characters to be great in certain non-combat areas can do that...and many, I presume, that will take a smattering of each to have a more 'well-rounded' (imho) character. It's totally left up to the Player's choice for their concept of their character.

I do not see how separating out all combat v. non-combat skills into separate lists would improve and/or make this moreso the case.

Oh, and Innate should come from both class, upbringing, background and race

Things like upbringing and background are or can be, certainly, factors in a PCs skill choices...but that's completely dependent on the game world and each individual player's background they come up with for their character.

There's no way to possibly incorporate rules for every eventuality and I think to try would do nothing but present a)more rules than are necessary and b)act as a straightjacket for player imagination. (or, from what I've read, simply be a 3/3.Xe revamp...which is not the idea here)

That is kind of the goal...allowing players to come up with their concept and use the 'mechanics' presented to make that happen. Not need or even have mechanics, just to have them, so all players do is go through list after list, ticking off this and that, to build (for lack of a better term) a 'mechanical' character.

This is intended as a game of character creation and development. Not character "builds" and construction. To use the somewhat loaded terms I see here often (and not wanting or intending to get into a playstyle debate or, gods forbid, edition war), but, "Role-playing" not "Roll-playing."

A player who wants to pile up their Skills to be "the best there is at what they do" can certainly do that. And can do that within the structure presented...without needing separete Feats or specifying Combat v. Non-combat Skills (their application will be evident and easily understood) to do something cool or swing a sword.

And for those "thinkers outside the box", there's no reason a DM can't allow a certain PC to take a skill from some other class' list if that player wants/the DM so chooses. That's something that almost certainly can and will happen once it goes (if it ever gets put to use) into each individual home/group. And the rules of the game should certainly not say that any DM or player "can't" do something.

Sorry to sound like a broken record but, again, I don't see a need to generate parameters for every possible thing a player might want to do.
Use your imagination. And, mostly for the DMs, use your common/what makes sense.

Not saying the game should stop for a half-hour discussion/debate/argument of physics and spatial geometry. But if that's the game the group is playing ("hyper-realism/That can't happen in the real world/That's mathematically impossible") then the DM knows this and can oblige accordingly. If a "high powered/super-heroic/action movie" game is what the group is playing, then the DM knows this as well and can/should oblige, as well.

Or whatever playstyle in between.

The rules can not and, I have ever believed, should not attempt to dictate what is right/good/fun for a particular group...and, I feel, laying down specifics to the degree you propose would be stepping into that realm...or further into that realm than I am interested in doing/think would be beneficial.

As for Racial Skills, any non-human character will have their set (trying to keep it 4 per race) of special abilities from the get go (at least for levels 1-4)...Though the possibility to include added/more/diversify "Racial Skills" in the next/second/"expert" tier for the PCs to choose from with their accumulated Skill Points is certainly intriguing and a thought process/concept I had not before considered...

I could see it as a possibility and sounds like something many players would enjoy...individualizing their elf, dwarf, what have you, from others of their race that all automatically share the same innate (small "i") abilities.

But I would not want to include that as a necessarily "starting" rule for beginner play. Be an elf...once you have the hang of that and what that entails, in the next set (5th level), you can choose to make yourself a more "elfier" elf.

To [MENTION=52734]Stormonu[/MENTION], regarding missile weapons, yeah. Slings get a bum wrap. (unless, of course, David was a high level thief, sneak attacking, with a magical sling bullet and rolling a natural 20. ) But given the options of starting missile weapons, it really makes sense that the pebble striking will do less damage than the arrow or crossbow bolt. Something of a "necessary inaccuracy" to comply with the neat blocks of 4 packaging/presentation.

I was not planning (for the sake of the 4-blocks) on differentiating between Light and Heavy crossbows. That can be done/introduced later (heavy crossbow as an additional weapon, increased/better range and damage, etc...). And, perhaps, some "sling specific" Skill could be devised/introduced to increase sling damage...if someone really wanted to make a PC who was a "master slinger" or some such.

Thanks for the comments and ideas. Keep 'em coming!
--SD

 

[steeldragons]

To simplify the spell allotment bonuses for high Int. MUs and high Pre. CLEs, I'm thinking, instead of how I outlined it before (how I've done it in my own homebrew game for years), in the interest of simplicity, the bonuses are just a straight +1 thru +4 (ability scores 15-18) and in addition to that being the Will Def. bonus (for Presence) and the Skill Point bonus (for Int) those numbers are just the number of additional Spell Levels per day the MU or CLE can use.

So, instead of a 17 Int. MU getting 1 additional 0 level spell, 1 additional 1st level spell and 1 additional 2nd level spell...they just receive +3 spell levels for the day to use as they see fit.

These bonus "spell levels per day" [2 0lvl spells=1 spell level.] may only be added to those Spell levels accessible to the spellcaster. i.e. a Magic-user with an 18 Int. (+4) could not cast a 4th lvl spell until they reached the level of Experience when 4th level spells are available (7th lvl. I believe. See chart below.)

How the extra spell [level] bonus is applied day-to-day is up to the player.

So, a 1st level MU with no Int. bonus is allowed 2 0lvl and 1 1lvl spell per day. A 2st level with an Int. of 17 (+3) could cast 2 0lvl and 4 1lvl, or 4 0lvl and 3 1lvl or 6 0lvl and 2 1lvl, etc...

A 3rd level MU (3 0lvl/2 1lvl/1 2lvl spell base) with Int. of 17 could cast: 3 0lvl, 3 1lvl and 2 2lvl spells or 5 0lvl, 2 1lvl and 2 2lvl, etc...

A 3rd level CLE (2 1lvl/1 2lvl base) with a Presence of 17 (+3) could cast: 5 1lvl and 1 2lvl or 3 1lvl and 2 2lvl spells per day, etc...

The below spell cart may be used for Magic-users and Clerics daily allowed spells. The only difference is Clerics do not have "cantrips" (0-lvl spells) and so, should ignore/not count that column among their daily allotment.

Caster.....Spell
Level.......Level_______________________________
------------0-----1-----2-----3-----4
1----------2-----1
2----------2-----2
3----------3-----2-----1
4----------3-----3-----2
(5----------4-----4-----2-----1)

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Elaborate please. I fail to see why...other than just having more/separate lists.

Players who want their characters to focus on being good at combat will choose skills that do that. THose that want to develop their characters to be great in certain non-combat areas can do that...and many, I presume, that will take a smattering of each to have a more 'well-rounded' (imho) character. It's totally left up to the Player's choice for their concept of their character.

I do not see how separating out all combat v. non-combat skills into separate lists would improve and/or make this moreso the case.

IME, games that use a common pool for combat and non-combat polarize the playstyles. In order to be good at non-combat, you have to be less good at combat. And vice versa.
Since combat can get your character killed and non-combat just changes how the game proceeds {and maybe how much combat you get into}, most players will lean towards the safe answer of being able to survive. The ones that want to focus on non-combat end up being very squishy and it becomes harder to balance non-combat encounters.

See the 3rd edition Bard class as an example.

 

[steeldragons]

All Fours Starter Set
Money, Treasure packets and Magic Items

1 gp = 10 sp = 100cp
1 sp = 10 cp

Gems/Jewels found within treasure: roll d4:
1: d4 gems worth d4 X 10 gp each
2: d4 gems worth 2d4 X 20 gp each
3: 2d4 gems worth d4 X 50 gp each
4: 1 gem worth d4 X 100 gp

Roll d10 for random Treasure generation
1: d4 gp, d4 X 10 sp or d4 X 50 cp
2: d4 X 10 gp, d4 X 50sp, d4 X 50 cp
3: d4 X 10 gp, d4 X 100 sp, d4 gems (roll on the gem/jewel table for value)
4: d4 X 10 gp, d4 X 100 sp, d4 X 100 cp, d4 gems (roll on gem table for value), 1 Magic Item (roll on Magic Items tables to determine item)
5: d4 X 20 gp, 2d4 X 20 sp, 2d4 X 100 cp, 2d4 gems
6: 2d4 X 20 gp, 2d4 X 50 sp, 3d4 X 100 cp, d4 Magic Items
7: 2d4 X 20 gp or 2d4 X 100 sp, 3d4 X 100 cp, 2d4 gems or 2 Magic items
8: 2d4 X 20 gp, 3d4 X 100 sp, 3d4 X 100 cp or 2d4 gems
9: 3d4 X 50 gp, 3d4 X 10 sp, 3d4 X 100 cp, 3d4 gems, d4 Magic Items
10: 4d4 X 50 gp, 4d4 X 100 sp, 4d4 X 100 cp, 4d4 gems, 4 Magic Items

Random Magic Item Generation (d10)
1: Potion
2: Magic Weapon or Armor
3: Wand
4: Potion
5: Magic Weapon or Armor
6: Miscellaneous Wondrous Item
7: Potion
8: Magic Weapon or Armor
9: Staff
10: Re-roll twice an keep both results

Potion (d4)
1: Healing
2: Strength
3: Antitoxin (Neutralize Poison)
4: Speed

Magic Weapons & Armor (d4)
1: Weapon +1 (DM's choice or randomly generate from the Weapons tables)
2: Armor +1 (d4: 1=Leather, 2=Scale, 3=Chain, 4=Plate)
3: Weapon +2 or +1, +3 against something specific (DM's choice)
4: Shield +1

Wand (d4)
1: Magic Missiles
2: Detect Secret Doors
3: Charm Person
4: Detect Metals & Minerals

Staff (d4)
1: Staff of Healing
2: Staff of Striking
3: Staff of Commanding
4: Staff of Wizardry

Miscellaneous Wondrous Items (d12)
1: Amulet of Misdirection (obscures any divination spells on the wearer)
2: Boots of "Elvinkind"/Silence
3: Bracers of Archery (+1 to hit with long or short bows, +1 to Reflex rolls)
4: Cloak of "Elvinkind"/Invisibility
5: Cloak of Protection (+1 to AC and all Saves/Defense rolls)
6: Crystal Ball (w/Clairaudience)
7: Cursed Item (Roll on Cursed Item table)
8: Gauntlets of Ogre Strength
9: Helm of Comprehending Languages (understand any language heard or read, including magic)
10: Medallion of Faith (+1 to Will saves)
11: Ring of Animal Friendship
12: Ring of Protection (+1 to AC and all Saves)

Cursed Item Table (d6 - it is recommended that once a Cursed item has been encountered by a group of players, that result be ignored and another Cursed item chosen)
1: Amulet/Cloak/Ring of Attraction (appears to be/detects as an item of Protection, but in fact is -1 to AC and all saving throws)
2: Dancing Boots (cause the wearer to dance uncontrollably, unable to control their movement, move silently or cast spells.)
3: Ever-playing Drum (once struck, the drum will continue to give off loud, continuous and indefinite beats, until a Dispel Magic is cast upon it.)
4: Girdle of Constricting (a magic appearing belt which, once donned, will attempt to squeeze the PC to death.)
5: Iron Bottle (contains d4 very ticked off Salamanders who will attack anyone in the immediate vicinity, including the opener of the bottle)
6: Poison Potion (appears to be a normal potion of any type, but is in fact a toxic concoction. Save against Fortitude or the character is reduced by half of their total HP for d4 days. At the end of that time, another Fortitude check needs to be made to avoid death unless an antidote, Antitoxin potion or Neutralize Poison spell is applied to the character.)

 

[steeldragons]

Oh...MY....GODS! I just spent the better part of an hour outlining/detailing the General Skills options (Skills available for any character, any class).

I can NOT believe that an unintentional click on the mouse just completely lost...ugh...

OK! Well, here's a quicky rundown of how I was thinking things so far....sorry, you'll have to use your imaginations/previous systems understanding of how they work/would apply...cuz I'm not writing all of that out again right now....SoaB!!! grrrr.

General Skills:

Adventuring (Strength based Skills)
Athletics: cost 1
Mountain/Dungeoneering: cost 3
Stonecraft: cost 2
Tumbling: cost 2

Occupational (Dexterity based Skills)
Blacksmithing: cost 3
Bowyer/Fletcher: cost 1
Gemcutter/Appraiser: cost 3
Performer: cost 2

Knowledge (Intelligence based Skills)
Healing: cost 1
History: Local cost 1/locale; Regional cost 2/region; Ancient cost 3
Language: Modern cost 1/language; Rare cost 2/language; Ancient cost 3
Survival: cost 2.

Interaction (Presence based Skills)
Animal Handling/Empathy: cost 2
Diplomacy: cost 3
Disguise: cost 2
Sense Motive: cost 1