Janaxstrus
First Post
Apparently 4e does as well, because it put the rule in the DMG, which is for DMs only according to Gary.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 4E 4E combat and powers: How to keep the baby and not the bathwater?
- Thread starter Mercurius
- Start date
Apparently 4e does as well, because it put the rule in the DMG, which is for DMs only according to Gary.
Oh, they covered the basics in the PHB as well. More or less.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
At one time I would have thought so, but the internet has convinced me that it isn't that "basic".
In any case, the main purpose of p. 42 is not to tell you that you can do it. Rather, having decided to allow it, here are some numbers to compare the stunt against, as a reasonable baseline. You know, instead of having to look up comparable powers in the mega list and then deriving from there, or just pulling a number out of a hat.
mr_powerchord
First Post
I've been working on various houserules, partly to get rid of the AEDU system for the past six months. Here is what I've come up with (it concerns every power source):
PC are a little more powerful, but coupled with others houserules (halved hp for monsters and opposed rolls), it isn't glaring. What's more, it keeps the game balanced, as it affects every class.
- PC starts with an amount of power points equal to 1+the sum of their modifiers.
- at the end of a short rest, PC regain an amount of power point equal to 1+their highest modifiers, with a malus equal to the amount of daily powers they've been using during the encounter. That malus resets at every extented rest.
- powers are categorized by levels:
- power level 1 (heroic tier) : Encounter 1, Daily 1, Utility 2
- power level 2 (heroic tier) : Encounter 3, Daily 5, Utility 6
- power level 3 (heroic tier) : Encounter 7, Daily 9, Utility 10
- power level 4 (parangon tier) : Encounter 13, Daily 15
- power level 5 (parangon tier) : Utility 16, Encounter 17
- power level 6 (parangon tier) : Daily 19
- power level 7 (epic tier) : Utility 22, Encounter 23
- power level 8 (epic tier) : Daily 25, Encounter 27
- power level 9 (epic tier) : Daily 29
- when a power is gained, PC can choose any encounter, daily or utility power of a certain level (depending on the character level ; ie at "pc level" 1, 2, and 3, PC can pick "power level" 1 powers. At "pc level" 4,5, and 6, they can pick "power level" 2 powers, etc.)
- power cost:
- heroic and parangon encounter power : 1 power point
- epic encounter power : 2 power points
- heroic and parangon daily power : 1 pp, and a malus of 1
- epic daily power : 2 pp, and a malus of 2
PC are a little more powerful, but coupled with others houserules (halved hp for monsters and opposed rolls), it isn't glaring. What's more, it keeps the game balanced, as it affects every class.
Siberys
Adventurer
I'd like to point out that a long character sheet isn't necessary for 4e; I could easily fit four or more characters onto a single page if I really wanted to, and mine are normally only 2 pages - and the second is taken up entirely by an equipment list and tracking boxes for hp, surges, powers, et cetera. By the same token, a 'long form' character sheet is easily possible in previous editions - I have a 9th level Oracle in a PF game, and that character sheet is a good 13 pages, including a tracking sheet. Unless someone built a ritual-focused character, I would never expect a 4e character to get that long! Heck, I'd be surprised if a summoner-type (the next longest, if only because of the need to include summoned creature stats) got longer than 5.
My point is that character sheets are more of a personal preference thing; I don't like looking things up in books during play, so I like long-form sheets, but in no system I play is short form difficult.
Janaxstrus
First Post
My 9th level rogue in a PF game is 2 pages.
My 6th level cleric in a D&D 3.5 is 3 pages
I have never ever had a character sheet longer than 4
1Mac
First Post
Any proposal for anything like power points or Vancian tables for martial characters is sort of missing the point. If AEDU is too much abstract resource management for martial characters, then surely power points or Vancian tables are all the more so.
Here are a couple of approaches I've been considering to make powers balanced, interesting, and not too abstract, for both martial and magical characters:
Conditional maintenance: Someone upthread mentioned raging once a day, and how it's sort of silly (it's also sort of Vancian, as it happens). I agree: it not only breaks verisimilitude, it's also an extra set of resources you need to track for just one power (rages per day and rounds per rage). I prefer to have Rage be activated whenever and function for every consecutive round the Barbarian can attempt to hit an enemy, with fatigue setting in after a round where he is unable or prevented from doing so. It's at once easier to track, more interesting tactically, and more representative of how we might imagine battle lust to work in reality. A similar approach can be taken with other battle stances, where its maintenance depends on fulfilling some condition. A defensive stance like that of the PF Stalwart Defender could be activated at any time and maintained indefinitely, but relies on the character not moving.
Per-round resource management: I'm working on a Marksman class, modelled after the Pathfinder Gunslinger class. A straightforward power is that if he makes a full-round attack, he adds xd6 bonus dice of damage to the attack. He can also trade bonus dice of damage to activate other powers, in the way the Gunslinger spends Grit points. The core Pathfinder Rogue has similar talents that work off of sneak attack dice. I like this approach because you don't have to track a resource from round to round. You know exactly what you can do each round, and it never changes (unless you level up), but there are still limits in place. Other possible per-round resources might include attacks, "auras" for warlord and buffing cleric types, or "circles" for abjuration wizards.
Here are a couple of approaches I've been considering to make powers balanced, interesting, and not too abstract, for both martial and magical characters:
Conditional maintenance: Someone upthread mentioned raging once a day, and how it's sort of silly (it's also sort of Vancian, as it happens). I agree: it not only breaks verisimilitude, it's also an extra set of resources you need to track for just one power (rages per day and rounds per rage). I prefer to have Rage be activated whenever and function for every consecutive round the Barbarian can attempt to hit an enemy, with fatigue setting in after a round where he is unable or prevented from doing so. It's at once easier to track, more interesting tactically, and more representative of how we might imagine battle lust to work in reality. A similar approach can be taken with other battle stances, where its maintenance depends on fulfilling some condition. A defensive stance like that of the PF Stalwart Defender could be activated at any time and maintained indefinitely, but relies on the character not moving.
Per-round resource management: I'm working on a Marksman class, modelled after the Pathfinder Gunslinger class. A straightforward power is that if he makes a full-round attack, he adds xd6 bonus dice of damage to the attack. He can also trade bonus dice of damage to activate other powers, in the way the Gunslinger spends Grit points. The core Pathfinder Rogue has similar talents that work off of sneak attack dice. I like this approach because you don't have to track a resource from round to round. You know exactly what you can do each round, and it never changes (unless you level up), but there are still limits in place. Other possible per-round resources might include attacks, "auras" for warlord and buffing cleric types, or "circles" for abjuration wizards.
I haven't seen much mention of essentials in this thread. The post-Essentials materials for 4E is superior to the earlier materials and should be the blueprint for 5E. As much as WotC wants to appeal to legacy players, they need to realize if they don't produce a "modern" game, their success is going to be rather limited. There are definitely some issues with Essentials that can be improved (reliance of battlegrid, too many conditions and triggered actions, etc), but certainly Essentials should still be the starting point for 5E design.
Janaxstrus
First Post
But they have to realize if they produce a "modern" game, their success may be limited to the "success" of 4e...which must have been less than stellar based on the quick turn to 5e.
